Claims

Paired t-tests show a statistically significant pretest-to-posttest increase in analytical thinking skills in all four classes at α = 0.05

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · 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? The null hypothesis of no increase was rejected in Class A, B, C, and D, with p-values of 0.000 (< 0.05). → Sudibyo et al. 2016

Evidence

Sudibyo et al. 2016

Elok Sudibyo, Budi Jatmiko & Wahono Widodo. (2016). The Effectiveness of CBL Model to Improve Analytical Thinking Skills the Students of Sport Science. International Education Studies, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n4p195

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Paired t-tests run in SPSS on pretest-posttest scores for each of the four classes, after Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality checks returned p = 0.200 for both universities. The article reports "p-value of t-test statistics for all paires ... was 0.000 (<0.05)"; no effect size is printed.

"The Table 4 informs that the significance (2-tailed) or p-value of t-test statistics for all paires (pretest and posttest) on Class A, B, C, and D was 0.000 (<0.05)."

Discussion

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.