"Are working memory models WEIRD? Testing models of working memory in a non- WEIRD sample": Correction to Cockcroft...

Reports an error in "Are working memory models WEIRD? Testing models of working memory in a non-WEIRD sample" by Kate Cockcroft (Neuropsychology, 2022[Jul], Vol 36[5], 456-467). In the article, in Table 2, for Verbal STM and Verbal WM, the means and standard deviations should have been set in bold but were not, and the median, 25th p, and 75th p values were set in bold but should not have been. In this table, bold values were those most appropriate for the data distribution. In Table 3, the correlations between the LR subtest and the OOO, MRX, and SR subtests were incorrectly listed as .13, .05, and .18*, respectively. They should have been .26***, .30****, and .27***, respectively. In Table 4, the df for the four-factor model was listed as 54 but should have been 48. The online version of this article has been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2022-50702-001.) Objective: There are many competing working memory models, generally formulated from young adult, typically student, samples from Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and developed (WEIRD) contexts. Whether such models are adequate conceptualizations of working memory (WM) in young adults from non-WEIRD contexts is unclear.

This study tested five possible models of the structure of working memory in young South African adults (n = 162; M_age = 20.41, SD_age = 1.82, 38% female) who are multilingual, from predominantly low socioeconomic, largely rural, contexts.

Confirmatory factor analyses showed that a four-component structure composed of domain-specific (verbal, visuospatial) storage and processing provided the best fit for the data.

Neuropsychological tests and rehabilitation approaches are based on leading models of working memory, and so their cross-cultural appropriateness is important. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).