Contingent reinforcement approaches show a large mean effect on FV consumption or preference (Md = 1.34) but rest on only two studies¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Contingent reinforcement (rewards for behaviour) improved FV consumption or preference with a mean effect size of Md = 1.34, well above the Md = 0.4 hinge point. → Dudley 2015

Evidence¶

Dudley 2015¶

Dudley, D. A., Cotton, W. G., & Peralta, L. R. (2015). Teaching approaches and strategies that promote healthy eating in primary school children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12, 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-015-0182-8

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r1

Meta-analysis of contingent reinforcement approaches: four studies, all reporting significance of at least p < .05; six effect sizes from only two studies, four large and two minimal. The review reports an average Cohen's d of Md = 1.34.

"Based on these two studies, the average effect size for contingent reinforcement in promoting FV consumption or preference is Md = 1.34. More studies are needed in order to ascertain an average effect size with less variance"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Expected tangible rewards reduce later free-choice engagement with a rewarded task, while verbal praise does not — related
• Parental involvement approaches fall just below the Zone of Desired Effects for FV consumption or preference (Md = 0.39) and were never stand-alone — related