Group-by-cycle interactions were significant for diagnostic accuracy, comprehension, revision quality, and self-assessment accuracy, but not for actionability¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · 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.
q2 i? Mixed-effects models with student random intercepts yielded significant Group × Cycle interactions for diagnostic accuracy (F(2,188.4) = 3.57, p = 0.030), comprehension (F(2,188.3) = 3.18, p = 0.044), revision quality (F(2,188.6) = 4.02, p = 0.019), and self-assessment accuracy (F(2,187.9) = 10.31, p < 0.001). → Yao X-C and Fan L 2026
q2 i? The actionability interaction was not significant (F(2,188.1) = 1.63, p = 0.199), so actionability favored Diagnostic Review consistently across cycles without diverging over time. → Yao X-C and Fan L 2026
Evidence¶
Yao X-C and Fan L 2026¶
Yao X-C and Fan L (2026) From automated scoring to learning diagnosis: a mechanism study of AI-supported formative assessment in English writing. Front. Psychol. 17:1905455. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1905455
q2 · i? · causal · r2
Linear mixed-effects models with Group, Cycle, and Group × Cycle fixed effects and a student-level random intercept on 288 cycle-level observations. Four "Group × Cycle interactions" were significant, indicating that the groups followed different trajectories across cycles. The group differences widened steadily for revision quality (g = 1.39, 1.50, 1.86) and self-assessment accuracy (g = 0.32, 0.80, 1.50), but not for diagnostic accuracy (contrasts 0.106, 0.102, 0.156) or comprehension (0.41, 0.62, 0.56).
"Mixed-effects models yielded Group × Cycle interactions for diagnostic accuracy,F(2,188.4) = 3.57, p = 0.030; feedback comprehension, F(2,188.3) = 3.18, p = 0.044; revision quality, F(2,188.6) = 4.02, p = 0.019; and self-assessment accuracy, F(2,187.9) = 10.31, p < 0.001."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Assessment for learning improves achievement — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
- Feedback comprehension showed the strongest bivariate association with revision quality, and indirect associations through actionability and comprehension remained positive after adjustment — related
- The Diagnostic Review class scored higher on diagnostic accuracy, actionability, comprehension, revision quality, and self-assessment accuracy across all three cycles — related
- High-acceptance groups made more effective use of AI feedback during revision, resulting in higher accuracy scores — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
group-cycle-interactions-formative-outcomes |
title |
Group-by-cycle interactions were significant for diagnostic accuracy, comprehension, revision quality, and self-assessment accuracy, but not for actionability |
description |
Group-by-cycle interactions were significant for diagnostic accuracy, comprehension, revision quality, and self-assessment accuracy, but not for actionability |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-10 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — yao-x-c-and-fan-l-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.