Claims

The WWC rated Arthur as having potentially positive effects rather than positive effects because only one study met evidence standards and it lacked a strong design

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2006 · 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 i? Arthur received the rating of potentially positive effects: at least one study showed a substantively important positive effect and no studies showed statistically significant or substantively important negative effects, but the criteria for positive effects were not met because there was only one study and it lacked a strong design. → Arthur (WWC Intervention Report) 2006

Evidence

Arthur (WWC Intervention Report) 2006

Arthur (WWC Intervention Report). (2006). What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. http://pbskids.org/arthur/index.html

q2 · i? · causal · r?

The WWC intervention rating scheme requires two or more studies showing statistically significant positive effects, at least one with a strong design, for a positive effects rating. For Arthur, "the study lacked a strong design" despite a substantively important average effect size, so the highest applicable rating was potentially positive effects.

"It did not meet the criteria for positive effects, because it only had one study. The remaining ratings (mixed effects, no discernible effects, potentially negative effects, and negative effects) were not consid-ered because Arthur was assigned the highest applicable rating."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id arthur-potentially-positive-rating-rationale
title The WWC rated Arthur as having potentially positive effects rather than positive effects because only one study met evidence standards and it lacked a strong design
description The WWC rated Arthur as having potentially positive effects rather than positive effects because only one study met evidence standards and it lacked a strong design
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 2006
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-07
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — arthur-wwc-intervention-report-2006

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