Teachers' judgments of students' text comprehension are significantly more accurate when diagnostic performance cues are available than when only non-diagnostic student cues are available¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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.
q3 i? Judgment accuracy was significantly higher in the diagnostic-cues-only condition (B = -2.06, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.997) and the mixed-cues condition (B = -0.92, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.995) than in the non-diagnostic-cues-only condition. → Janneke van de Pol 2024
Evidence¶
Janneke van de Pol 2024¶
Janneke van de Pol, Eleanor Rowan, Eva Janssen, Tamara van Gog. (2024). Effects of availability of diagnostic and non-diagnostic cues on the accuracy of teachers' judgments of students' text comprehension. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09383-0
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Within-subjects experiment with 33 Dutch secondary teachers judging anonymous students' reading comprehension in a multilevel regression; the Results section reports "teachers' judgments were significantly more accurate" with diagnostic cues available, with the printed coefficients and R2 values.
"teachers' judgments were significantly more accurate in condition 2 (diagnostic cues only; B = -2.06, p < 0.001, SE = 0.12, R2 = 0.997) and 3 (mixed cues; B = -0.92, SE = 0.07, p < 0.001; R2 = 0.995) than in condition 1 (non-diagnostic cues only)"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Performance cues were found most diagnostic for students' reading comprehension performance — related
- Teachers judge more accurately with only diagnostic cues than with a mix of diagnostic and non-diagnostic cues — related
- A brief cue-diagnosticity intervention did not significantly improve teachers' judgment accuracy, presumably because accuracy was already relatively high — related
- When making accurate judgments, teachers used diagnostic cues to a greater extent, but also used non-diagnostic cues (IQ and reading self-concept) — related
- The cue-diagnosticity intervention improved teachers' calibration: confidence and judgment accuracy became more aligned — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
diagnostic-cues-improve-teacher-judgment-accuracy |
title |
Teachers' judgments of students' text comprehension are significantly more accurate when diagnostic performance cues are available than when only non-diagnostic student cues are available |
description |
Teachers' judgments of students' text comprehension are significantly more accurate when diagnostic performance cues are available than when only non-diagnostic student cues are available |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2024 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-19 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — janneke-van-de-pol-2024 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.