Expert example standards did not significantly enhance relative accuracy in evaluating self-generated examples¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr3·q3
Currency · newest study 2022 · 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? The effect of expert example standards on relative accuracy (gamma correlations) did not reach statistical significance (p = .058). → Linda Froese 2022
Evidence¶
Linda Froese 2022¶
Linda Froese, Julian Roelle. (2022). Expert example standards but not idea unit standards help learners accurately evaluate the quality of self-generated examples. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-022-09293-z
q3 · i? · causal · r3
The 2×2 ANOVA on intra-individual gamma correlations between students' and experts' ratings found no significant effect of expert example standards; the article reports ηp2 = .03 and p = .058, a marginal result it treats as non-significant.
"In terms of relative accuracy, an ANOVA did not yield a statistically significant effect for the factor expert example standards, F(1, 119) = 3.65, p = .058, ηp2 = .03"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Providing expert example standards enhances absolute judgment accuracy in evaluating self-generated examples — related
- Benefits of expert example standards depend on example quality: largest for incorrect examples, absent for correct ones — related
- Idea unit standards do not enhance judgment accuracy in evaluating self-generated examples — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
- Providing a rubric does not significantly improve relative accuracy of self-assessment across criteria — related
- Thinking aloud does not affect teachers' monitoring accuracy — related
- Example quality does not significantly moderate the effects of the standards on judgment accuracy when aggregated across concepts — related
- Negative example standards do not reliably improve judgment accuracy and significantly decrease relative accuracy in evaluating self-generated examples — related
- Expert example standards improve university students' judgment accuracy (bias, absolute accuracy, and relative accuracy) when evaluating self-generated examples — reports the opposite
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
expert-standards-relative-accuracy-null |
title |
Expert example standards did not significantly enhance relative accuracy in evaluating self-generated examples |
description |
Expert example standards did not significantly enhance relative accuracy in evaluating self-generated examples |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2022 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — linda-froese-2022 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.