CrushStations
ASO Keyword Dashboard
Tracking 97 keywords for CrushStations in Apple App Store
CrushStations tracks 97 keywords (1 keyword ranks; 96 need traction). Key metrics: 0% top-10 coverage, opportunity 70.7, difficulty 40.0, best rank 218.
Tracked keywords
97
1 ranked • 96 not ranking yet
Top 10 coverage
0%
Best rank 218 • Latest leader —
Avg opportunity
70.7
Top keyword: collaboration
Avg difficulty
40.0
Lower scores indicate easier wins
Opportunity leaders
- 63.2
collaboration
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 44.2 • Rank —
Competitors: 60
- 64.1
university
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 39.7 • Rank —
Competitors: 28
- 67.3
among
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 42.5 • Rank —
Competitors: 187
- 67.5
functions
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 41.6 • Rank —
Competitors: 108
- 68.0
education
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 42.5 • Rank —
Competitors: 103
Unranked opportunities
collaboration
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 44.2 • Competitors: 60
university
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 39.7 • Competitors: 28
among
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 42.5 • Competitors: 187
functions
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 41.6 • Competitors: 108
education
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 42.5 • Competitors: 103
High competition keywords
new
Total apps: 182,233 • Major competitors: 3,779
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 55.7
free
Total apps: 176,038 • Major competitors: 3,927
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 55.7
create
Total apps: 130,860 • Major competitors: 2,323
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 54.5
information
Total apps: 121,651 • Major competitors: 1,140
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 52.4
way
Total apps: 115,772 • Major competitors: 1,944
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 53.3
All tracked keywords
Includes opportunity, difficulty, rankings and competitor benchmarks
| Major Competitors | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cognitive | 72 | 100 | 38 | 61 4,966 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.1 | 218 | 218 | 88 major competitor apps |
| free | 65 | 100 | 56 | 87 176,038 competing apps Median installs: 750 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 3,927 major competitor apps |
| new | 65 | 100 | 56 | 87 182,233 competing apps Median installs: 550 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 3,779 major competitor apps |
| collaboration | 73 | 100 | 44 | 63 6,341 competing apps Median installs: 300 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 60 major competitor apps |
| support | 67 | 100 | 51 | 82 83,388 competing apps Median installs: 500 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 1,123 major competitor apps |
| information | 66 | 100 | 52 | 85 121,651 competing apps Median installs: 350 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 1,140 major competitor apps |
| designed | 66 | 100 | 51 | 84 113,897 competing apps Median installs: 350 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 1,081 major competitor apps |
| institute | 71 | 100 | 34 | 56 2,322 competing apps Median installs: 250 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 5 major competitor apps |
| created | 71 | 100 | 45 | 73 26,277 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 298 major competitor apps |
| people | 68 | 100 | 52 | 79 56,356 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 920 major competitor apps |
| way | 66 | 100 | 53 | 84 115,772 competing apps Median installs: 500 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 1,944 major competitor apps |
| working | 71 | 100 | 48 | 72 21,965 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 253 major competitor apps |
| university | 73 | 100 | 40 | 64 7,173 competing apps Median installs: 350 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 28 major competitor apps |
| among | 73 | 100 | 42 | 67 11,109 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 187 major competitor apps |
| monitor | 70 | 100 | 46 | 75 34,239 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 377 major competitor apps |
| effective | 72 | 100 | 43 | 71 17,928 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 145 major competitor apps |
| smart | 68 | 100 | 50 | 79 58,362 competing apps Median installs: 483 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 805 major competitor apps |
| achievement | 71 | 100 | 35 | 57 2,706 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 29 major competitor apps |
| create | 66 | 100 | 55 | 85 130,860 competing apps Median installs: 550 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 2,323 major competitor apps |
| view | 67 | 100 | 52 | 84 108,094 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 1,319 major competitor apps |
| related | 71 | 100 | 46 | 72 22,222 competing apps Median installs: 350 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 230 major competitor apps |
| plan | 69 | 100 | 49 | 77 42,311 competing apps Median installs: 500 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 759 major competitor apps |
| part | 70 | 100 | 48 | 74 29,289 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 405 major competitor apps |
| type | 71 | 100 | 45 | 73 25,645 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 291 major competitor apps |
| performance | 70 | 100 | 45 | 74 28,055 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 246 major competitor apps |
App Description
Players need to remember the color and type of creatures to free them and keep them out of reach of the hungry octopus.
How does this support learning?
Executive functions refer to a set of top-down, goal-oriented cognitive processes that enable people to control, monitor and plan behaviors and emotions. Miyake and Friedman’s model supports a unity-and-diversity view of EF in that it incorporates the three distinct but related components of EF: inhibitory control, task-switching and updating (Miyake et al., 2000).
What is the research evidence?
Our research suggests that CrushStations is an effective way to train working memory.
The study supporting this claim will be published soon.
Research has found that EF is related to performance in literacy and math along with long-term gains in school performance and academic readiness (Blair & Razza, 2007; Brock, Rimm-Kaufman, Nathanson, & Grimm, 2009; St Clair-Thompson & Gathercole, 2006; Welsh, Nix, Blair, Bierman, & Nelson, 2010) and that disparities in EF among preschool children from low-income versus high-income homes may contribute to the achievement gap (Blair & Razza, 2007; Noble, McCandliss, & Farah, 2007).
This game is part of the Smart Suite, created by New York University’s CREATE lab in collaboration with the University of California, Santa Barbara, and The Graduate Center, CUNY.
The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305A150417 to the University of California, Santa Barbara. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.