Posttest performance of the replication's contingent condition was far below the original study's contingent condition, a large unregistered difference not seen for the three control conditions¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 Outcome scores of the replication's contingent condition differed greatly from the 1978 contingent condition (d = 1.55), while verbal, swing, and demonstration means matched. → Smit 2025

Evidence¶

Smit 2025¶

Smit, N., de Kleijn, R., Wicherts, J. M., & van de Pol, J. (2025). What it takes to tutor—A preregistered direct replication of the scaffolding experimental study by D. Wood et al. (1978). Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000965

q2 · i3 · causal · r3

Unregistered two-sample comparison of contingent-condition outcome means between the 1978 study and the replication: t(75) = 4.20, p < .001, d = 1.55 (1978 M = 15.00, replication M = 5.07, per Table 5). The verbal, swing, and demonstration comparisons were all nonsignificant, indicating the discrepancy is specific to the contingent condition.

"a large difference between D. Wood et al. (1978) and the repli-cation for the contingent condition, unregistered: t(75) = 4.20, p , .001, d = 1.55"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Children's activity scores did not significantly differ between instructional conditions in the replication, failing to replicate the higher activity of contingently taught children in 1978 — related
• In the replication, children's posttest outcome scores did not significantly differ across the four instructional conditions, failing to replicate the contingent-instruction advantage of D. Wood et al. (1978) — related
• The replication successfully reproduced the original study's execution of contingent instruction, with tutors applying the contingency rule in 68.9% of interventions versus 70% in 1978 — related
• Efficiency scores showed no overall condition difference in the replication, though children in the demonstration condition were less efficient than children in the swing and verbal conditions — related
• Average instruction time differed significantly between conditions, with demonstration by far the shortest, replicating the original study's durations — related