Claims

ART students achieved larger effect sizes for story content (1.46) and number of words written (.95), while T3 students achieved the largest effect size for story quality (1.13)

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i3 ART outperformed T3 on effect sizes for story content and number of words written, whereas T3 had the largest effect size for story quality. → Dunn 2013

Evidence

Dunn 2013

Michael Dunn. (2013). Comparing two story-writing mnemonic strategies: A randomized control trial study. International Journal of Special Education, 28(3). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1024423

q2 · i3 · causal · r1

Effect sizes (Cohen's d) computed against the control group in the randomized control trial: ART d = 1.46 for story content, .85 for story quality, .95 for NWW; T3 d = .30 for story content, 1.13 for story quality, .87 for NWW. The article states ART students achieved larger effect sizes for story content and NWW.

"ART students achieved larger effect sizes for story content and number of words written. T3 students achieved the largest effect size for story quality."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.