Claims

The five clustering variables differed significantly across the four clusters, with large effect sizes for all five.

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2 · i3 large
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.

q2 i3 A large amount of variance (73.2%) in the five variables was explained by cluster membership. → Cerezo 2016

Evidence

Cerezo 2016

Cerezo, R., Sanchez-Santillan, M., Paule-Ruiz, M. P., & Núñez, J. C. (2016). Students' LMS interaction patterns and their relationship with achievement: A case study in higher education. Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.006

q2 · i3 · associational · r1

MANOVA on the five log variables across four clusters; the article reports "73.2% is explained by the differences between the four clusters [Wilks’ Lambda = .019; F (15, 365) = 77.22; p < .001, η2p = .732]".

"a large amount of variance in the set of the five dependent variables (73.2%) is explained by the differences between the four clusters [Wilks’ Lambda = .019; F (15, 365) = 77.22; p < .001, η2p = .732]"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-30
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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