None of five moderators (pilot study, retention test, word-selection method, vocabulary outcome, number of words taught) significantly explained heterogeneity in effect sizes¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr3·q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · 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? Subgroup (Analog ANOVA) analyses found no statistically significant between-group differences for pilot study (p = .354), retention test (p = .384), word-selection method (p = .604), vocabulary output (p = .302), or number of words taught (p = .386). → Kansızoğlu 2025
Evidence¶
Kansızoğlu 2025¶
Kansızoğlu, N. & Bekiroğlu, N. (2025). The effect of vocabulary development interventions on cognitive outcomes of vocabulary: A meta-analysis study. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 9(1), 123-148. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202532083
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3
Subgroup analyses across the 43 theses (smaller k per moderator due to unreported data). The article reports "none had a significant effect on explaining the heterogeneity in effect sizes", with all Qb values below critical χ² thresholds.
"subgroup analysis of five moderators (pilot study, retention tests, word selection method, vocabulary knowledge outcome [dependent variable], and the number of words taught) revealed that none had a significant effect on explaining the heterogeneity in effect sizes"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- The combined meta-regression model of sample size and number of vocabulary items taught is significant, accounting for 44.7% of between-study variance — related
- Number of vocabulary words taught alone does not significantly predict effect sizes in meta-regression — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Question type, stem type, MCQ source, and web accessibility did not independently explain LLM accuracy heterogeneity in biomedical MCQ meta‐regressions — related
- Knowledge gains from e‐learning are not significantly moderated by study design, student level, delivery synchronicity, intervention duration, or repeat testing — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.