MCS - Age 11 - Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) Spatial Working Memory Task

The Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) assessed their cohort members (CMs) during the study’s age 11 sweep using the Spatial Working Memory Task from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB).

Details on this measure and the data collected from the CMs are outlined in the table below.

Year of data collection:	2012
Domain:	Memory (holding and manipulating information)
Measures:	The test measures Spatial Working Memory, which requires retention and manipulation of visuospatial information. It has notable executive function demands and provides a measure of strategy as well as working memory errors. The test is recommended to assess cognitive function in: Alzheimer’s disease, autism spectrum disorder, depression and affective disorders, Down’s syndrome, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, schizophrenia, stroke and cerebrovascular disease, and traumatic brain injury.
CHC:	Gsm (Short-Term memory)
CLOSER source:	Explore this sweep in CLOSER Discovery: MCS Age 11 Survey (2012) (opens in new tab)
Administration method:	Self-completion on Computer-Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI) tablet; using the CANTAB eclipse software which was integrated into the CAPI interview.
Procedure:	The test began with a number of coloured squares (boxes) shown on the screen. By selecting the boxes and using a process of elimination, the participant should have found one yellow ‘token’ in each of a number of boxes and use them to fill up an empty column on the right-hand side of the screen. Depending on the difficulty level used for this test, the number of boxes could be gradually increased until a maximum of 12 boxes were shown for the participants to search. The colour and position of the boxes used are changed from trial to trial to discourage the use of stereotyped search strategies.
	Duration: max 18 minutes
Link to questionnaire:	Documentation not available.
	For some additional detail, see: Cambridge Cognition web page on Spatial Working Memory (opens in new tab)
Scoring:	Key outcomes of the test were: total errors, time taken until last response strategy
	Raw data and procedures / algorithms for deriving the summary scores are unavailable.
Item-level variable(s):	SWMTTIME – SWMWE8BX
Total score/derived variable(s):	Key item-level variable(s):
	SWMTE8BX (Total errors on 4,6 and 8 box trials)
	SWMMTTLR (Mean time to last response)
	SWMSTRAT (Overall degree to which searches employ sequential heuristic)
Age of participant (months):	Mean = 134, SD = 3.95, Range = 122 – 148
Descriptives:		SWMTE8BX	SWMMTTLR	SWMSTRAT
		(Total errors on 4,6 and 8 box trials)	(Mean time to last response)	(Strategy)
	N	12,757	12,637	12,757
	Range	0 – 173	10591 – 153037	0 – 48
	Mean	35.71	28922.07	34.32
	SD	18.76	6309.03	5.94
		(click image to enlarge)	(click image to enlarge)	(click image to enlarge)
Other sweep and/or cohort:	None
Source:	Cambridge Cognition. CANTAB (Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery) – Cognitive Assessment Software. (opens in new tab)
Technical resources:	Atkinson, M. (2015). Millennium Cohort Study Interpreting the CANTAB Cognitive Measures. London, UK: Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Institute of Education, University of London. (opens in new tab)
	Hansen K, ed. (2014). Millennium Cohort Study , A Guide to the Datasets (Eighth Edition) – First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Surveys. London, UK: Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Institute of Education, University of London (opens in new tab)
Example articles:	Brown, M & Sullivan, A. (2014). Cognitive Development. In Platt, L (ed), Millennium Cohort Study: Initial findings from the Age 11 survey. London: Centre for Longitudinal Studies.
	Fitzpatrick, A., Carter, J., & Quigley, M. A. (2016). Association of gestational age with verbal ability and spatial working memory at age 11. Pediatrics, e20160578.
	Flouri, E., Papachristou, E., & Midouhas, E. (2018). The role of neighbourhood greenspace in children’s spatial working memory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 359-373.