No significant group differences on Iowa Gambling Task block trends, overall trend, or Decks B, C, and D choices¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Beyond the Deck A contrast, the groups did not differ significantly on any IGT block trend, the overall general trend, or choices from Decks B, C, and D; no effect sizes were printed for these null results. → Medeiros W 2016

Evidence¶

Medeiros W 2016¶

Medeiros W, Torro-Alves N, Malloy-Diniz LF and Minervino CM (2016) Executive Functions in Children Who Experience Bullying Situations. Front. Psychol. 7:1197. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01197

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Kruskal–Wallis analyses of IGT learning curves across the four groups found "no significant differences between the groups with regard to the general score trends in blocks" and no overall trend difference; Decks B (p = 0.286), C (p = 0.325), and D (p = 0.566) also showed no differences. Equivalence was not tested.

"There was no significant differences between the groups with regard to the general score trends in blocks ( χ2= 0.241, p= 0.971 in Block 1; χ2= 0.758, p= 0.859 in Block 2; χ2= 1.435, p= 0.697 in Block 3; χ2= 1.685, p= 0.640 in Block 4, and χ2= 0.096, p= 0.995 in Block 5) and the overall general trend (χ2= 0.668, p= 0.881)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• No significant group differences in Stroop color and word card times or in error rates on any Stroop card
• Bully group children make more unfavorable Deck A choices on the Iowa Gambling Task than bully-victim children — related