Claims

Interventions located in one or up to three geographical areas showed higher primary ITT and FSM effect sizes than interventions spread across more areas

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2021 · 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? Primary ITT and FSM effect sizes were higher for interventions located in one or up to three geographical areas than for interventions in a greater number of areas; the pattern did not hold for secondary ITT effects. → Demack 2021

Evidence

Demack 2021

Demack, S., Maxwell, B., Coldwell, M., Stevens, A., Wolstenholme, C., Reaney-Wood, S., Stiell, B., & Lortie-Forgues, H. (2021). Review of EEF projects: Evaluation report. Education Endowment Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED625480

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Subgroup meta-analysis of effect sizes by geographical context across the EEF trials. The review reports "higher effect sizes for interventions located in one or up to three geographical areas" and notes a similar pattern for FSM but not secondary ITT effects.

"The meta-analyses found an association between geographical context and primary ITT effect size that showed higher effect sizes for interventions located in one or up to three geographical areas compared to interventions located in a greater number of geographical areas."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.