In the mental integration task, the static-vs-dynamic difference was descriptively largest for the medium-span group but only marginal (d = 0.20, p = .062)¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3·i1small
Currency · newest study 2022 · 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 i1 For the medium-span group the difference between static and dynamic visual design just failed to reach significance, with Cohen's d = 0.20, descriptively larger than for the low- or high-span groups. → Tim Kühl 2022
Evidence¶
Tim Kühl 2022¶
Tim Kühl, Benedict C. O. F. Fehringer, Stefan Münzer. (2022). Unifying the Ability-as-Compensator and Ability-as-Enhancer Hypotheses. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09650-5
q3 · i1 · causal · r2
Illustrative subgroup analysis of the N = 77 experiment comparing static and dynamic accuracy for the medium-span group (span 8–9, n = 22). The article reports 'a descriptively higher difference between visual design conditions in terms of effect size' for this group than for the low- or high-span groups.
"The difference between static and dynamic visual design just failed to reach significance for the medium-span group, t(21) = 1.60, p = .062, Cohen's d = 0.20, [−0.41, 0.81]."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Spatial Ability — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it
Related Claims¶
- In the mental integration task, low-span and high-span groups showed no significant static-vs-dynamic differences (d = 0.09 and d = 0.03) — related
- The mental integration task showed no general advantage of the dynamic over the static visual design in overall accuracy — related
- In a visual-spatial integration task, the interaction between visual-spatial working memory capacity and visual design is quadratic, with the inverted-U progression more strongly accentuated for the dynamic design — related
- Reanalysis of pooled data from four multimedia learning experiments found quadratic interactions, with the largest design difference at medium ability — a broader claim this one bears on
- Dynamic visualizations compensate vocational-school students with low general reasoning when learning with analogies — related
- Dynamic visualizations benefit vocational-school students with lower visual-spatial ability more than those with higher visual-spatial ability — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
medium-span-largest-descriptive-difference-study1 |
title |
In the mental integration task, the static-vs-dynamic difference was descriptively largest for the medium-span group but only marginal (d = 0.20, p = .062) |
description |
In the mental integration task, the static-vs-dynamic difference was descriptively largest for the medium-span group but only marginal (d = 0.20, p = .062) |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2022 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-21 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — tim-kühl-2022 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.