In discipline-specific exploratory regressions, neither Stroop RT cost nor complex No-Go accuracy significantly predicted science or maths misconception measures separately¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · 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.
q3 i? Stroop RT cost was not a significant predictor of science or maths misconception accuracy separately (p-values at trend, coefficients in the same direction as combined analyses). → Brookman-Byrne A 2018
Evidence¶
Brookman-Byrne A 2018¶
Brookman-Byrne A, Mareschal D, Tolmie AK, Dumontheil I (2018) Inhibitory control and counterintuitive science and maths reasoning in adolescence. PLoS ONE 13(6): e0198973. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198973
q3 · i? · associational · r2
Exploratory enter-method regressions on science and maths separately (N = 81): Stroop RT cost β = -.18, p = .080 (science accuracy) and β = -.18, p = .083 (maths accuracy); "the p-values were at trend".
"Stroop RT cost was not a significant predictor of science (model 3) or maths (model 4) misconception accuracy, although the p-values were at trend and the coefficients were in the same direction as the combined analyses."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Adolescents show lower accuracy and longer reaction times on counterintuitive misconception trials than on matched control trials in science and maths
- Inhibitory control did not relate to adolescents' communicative perspective-taking — related
- Better semantic inhibition (smaller Stroop RT cost) is associated with higher accuracy on counterintuitive science and maths misconception trials — a broader claim this one bears on
- Better response inhibition (complex No-Go accuracy) is associated with longer reaction times on counterintuitive misconception trials, not better performance — related
- The true-versus-false statement accuracy difference is larger for misconception than control trials, and significant for science but not maths — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
discipline-specific-inhibition-predictions-nonsignificant |
title |
In discipline-specific exploratory regressions, neither Stroop RT cost nor complex No-Go accuracy significantly predicted science or maths misconception measures separately |
description |
In discipline-specific exploratory regressions, neither Stroop RT cost nor complex No-Go accuracy significantly predicted science or maths misconception measures separately |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2018 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-16 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — brookman-byrne-a-2018 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.