Working memory model evaluation

• Strength: evidence to support from dual task studies by Baddeley et al

  2 conditions, condition 1 = 2 visual tasks, condition 2 = 1 visual, 1 verbal. Ppts found it harder in condition 1 as the 2 tasks were competing for the same limited resources of the visuospatial sketchpad. Condition 2 was easier as ppts used separate resources of the visuospatial sketchpad and phonological loop. This supports the idea of separate components in the working memory otherwise performance would've been the same on both tasks.
• Strength: further support from case studies. Patient K.F suffered brain damage after a motorbike accident. He then had poor working memory ability for verbal info but could process visual info. As K.F'S phonological loop had been damaged, it acts as evidence for the different components. However, the evidence is unique and may not generalise to the whole population.
• Strength: WM capacity can be used to measure suitability for certain jobs. For example, US air force use WM capacity to assess pilots. This allowed us to understand and explain processing deficits and offers possible routes to strategies to help people with conditions such as dyslexia. This increases the models validity as it has practical applications.
• Limitation: the model doesn't account for musical memory. Ppts can listen to instrumental music without impairing their performance on other acoustic tasks. This means that the model may be incomplete.
• Limitation: there is a lack of clarity over the central executive. The central executive is the most important part of the model, but it is the least understood as its function is vague and difficult to test. This means that the working model memory has not been fully explained.