Claims

Post-training reading speed differs significantly between the trained and untrained groups, which did not differ before training

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · 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? A Mann-Whitney U test found no significant pre-training speed difference between control and test groups (U = 302.500, Z = -.196, p = .845) but a significant post-training difference in favor of the test group (U = 114.000, Z = -3.885, p = .000). → Kana'an et al. 2014

Evidence

Kana'an et al. 2014

Basim Hamdan Ibrahim Kana'an, Salahud Din Abdul Rab & Ahlullah Siddiqui. (2014). The Effect of Expansion of Vision Span on Reading Speed: A Case Study of EFL Major Students at King Khalid University. English Language Teaching, 7(10). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n10p57

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Mann-Whitney U comparison of both groups (N = 25 each) on post-training reading speed (Table 8: U = 114.000, Z = -3.885, Asymp. Sig. .000). The article reports "a significant difference in the speed of reading in favor of the test group"; no effect size is printed.

"Table 8 reveals that in the post-training tests, there is a significant difference in the speed of reading in favor of the test group. It means that EFL learners were able to improve their speed of reading after receiving training in the expansion of vision span."

Discussion

Learner Variables

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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