Elaborative interrogation produced lower posttest accuracy than reading the lesson twice in a written lesson on posterior probability¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · 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? Participants in the elaborative interrogation condition had lower posttest item accuracy than participants in the read-twice condition. → Clinton 2016
Evidence¶
Clinton 2016¶
Clinton, V., Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2016). Learning About Posterior Probability: Do Diagrams and Elaborative Interrogation Help? The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(3), 579-599. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2015.1048847
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Mixed-effects model on posttest item accuracy in a randomized 3x3 factorial experiment with undergraduates (N = 198 analyzed after removing 47 who passed the pretest). The article reports that "participants in the elaborative interrogation condition had lower posttest item accuracy than did participants in the read-twice condition". No effect size printed.
"participants in the elaborative interrogation condition had lower posttest item accuracy than did participants in the read-twice condition, B = 3.75, Wald Z = 13.81, p < .001"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Elaborative interrogation produced greater pretest-to-posttest gains on items about common misbeliefs than reading control in Experiment 2 — reports the opposite
- Elaborative interrogation increased perceived difficulty and time spent with the lesson — related
- Diagrams improved posttest accuracy only in the read-twice condition, not in the questioning conditions — related
- Answers to elaborative interrogation questions were mostly poor in quality, and answer quality correlated positively with posttest scores — related
- The quality of elaborative-interrogation answers had little effect on retention; even failed or inadequate why-answers facilitated learning relative to reading — reports the opposite
- Elaborative Interrogation Improves Learning — a broader claim this one bears on
- A regression discontinuity design on Review Exercise data supports a causal link between leveling up and higher assessment accuracy, at least for the first level-up — related
- Elaborative interrogation improved true/false test performance in an introductory biology course context — related
- Generating a good question for a topic strongly predicts answering the matching test item correctly — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
elaborative-interrogation-lower-posttest-than-read-twice-posterior-probability |
title |
Elaborative interrogation produced lower posttest accuracy than reading the lesson twice in a written lesson on posterior probability |
description |
Elaborative interrogation produced lower posttest accuracy than reading the lesson twice in a written lesson on posterior probability |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2016 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-09-25 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — clinton-2016 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.