Effects on affirming motivations are larger when total intervention duration is longer and when the share of boys in the sample is higher¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesisr2–r3·q4
Currency · newest study 2023 · 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.
q4 i? Total duration significantly predicted affirming-motivation effects but not comprehension effects. → van der Sande 2023
q4 i? Percentage of boys significantly predicted affirming-motivation effects but not comprehension effects. → van der Sande 2023 (2)
Evidence¶
van der Sande 2023¶
van der Sande, L., van Steensel, R., Fikrat-Wevers, S., & Arends, L. (2023). Effectiveness of Interventions that Foster Reading Motivation: a Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09719-3
q4 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2
Meta-regression on immediate post-tests: total duration coefficient b = 0.004 (SE = 0.002), significant for affirming motivations; b = 0.001 (SE = 0.001), not significant for comprehension. Number of sessions was not related to either outcome.
"The effect of total duration was significant for affirming motivations but not for reading comprehension. Effects on affirming motivations were larger if the total duration of the intervention was longer."
van der Sande 2023 (2)¶
van der Sande, L., van Steensel, R., Fikrat-Wevers, S., & Arends, L. (2023). Effectiveness of Interventions that Foster Reading Motivation: a Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09719-3
q4 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3
Meta-regression on immediate post-tests: percentage of boys coefficient b = 0.023 (SE = 0.011), significant for affirming motivations; b = -0.008 (SE = 0.010), not significant for comprehension.
"Effects on affirming reading motivations were larger if the share of boys in the sample was higher."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Effects on affirming motivations and reading comprehension are trivial at delayed post-tests and do not significantly differ from immediate-posttest effects — related
- GenAI function, intervention duration, publication year, and gender were not significant moderators of GenAI's motivational effect — reports the opposite
- Effects on reading comprehension are larger for primary schoolers than secondary schoolers and larger for typical readers than struggling readers, with no such differences for affirming motivations — related
- Interventions that trigger interest have larger effects on affirming motivations and reading comprehension than interventions that do not — related
- Interventions delivered by researchers have larger effects on reading comprehension than interventions delivered by others, mostly teachers — related
- Effects on affirming motivations were largest for teacher reports, but this rests on a single study — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
duration-and-gender-moderators |
title |
Effects on affirming motivations are larger when total intervention duration is longer and when the share of boys in the sample is higher |
description |
Effects on affirming motivations are larger when total intervention duration is longer and when the share of boys in the sample is higher |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2023 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-19 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — van-der-sande-2023, van-der-sande-2023-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.