One-to-one coaching format alone is not a statistically significant predictor of training effect size¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In meta-regression across 12 studies, use of a one-to-one training format alone was not a statistically significant predictor of effect size (β = .67, p = .11), though it explained 27.12% of random variance. → Matthew E. Brock and Erik W. Carter 2017

Evidence¶

Matthew E. Brock and Erik W. Carter 2017¶

Matthew E. Brock and Erik W. Carter. (2017). A Meta-Analysis of Educator Training to Improve Implementation of Interventions for Students With Disabilities. Remedial and Special Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516653477

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r1

Meta-regression model across all 12 studies testing coaching format as a moderator. Coaching alone was "not a statistically significant predictor of effect size" (p = .11) but explained R2 = 27.12% of random variance.

"Use of a one-to-one training format (i.e., coaching) alone was not a statistically significant predictor of effect size, β = .67, t(10) = 1.74, p = .11, although it did explain random variance in the model (R 2 = 27.12%)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Performance feedback alone is not a statistically significant predictor of training effect size in group-design studies — related
• Training combining modeling and performance feedback is associated with larger implementation fidelity effects (β = .77, p = .04) — related
• In-person group formats were more effective than online or independent formats for empathy training — related