Claims

Metacognition intervention effects persist at follow-up (g = 0.29) in young children

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r? · q4 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2024 · 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.

q4 i1 Metacognition interventions show a smaller but still positive effect at longer-term follow-up assessment. → Janina Eberhart 2024

Evidence

Janina Eberhart 2024

Janina Eberhart, Franziska Ingendahl, Donna Bryce. (2024). Are metacognition interventions in young children effective? Evidence from a series of meta-analyses. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09405-x

q4 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r?

Follow-up analyses within the same preregistered meta-analytic dataset of 67 studies. The article reports "at follow-up g = 0.29 (95% CI [0.17, 0.40])", a smaller effect than at post-test.

"An overall effectiveness of metacognition interventions was evidenced at immediate post-test g = 0.48 (95% CI [0.35, 0.61]), and at follow-up g = 0.29 (95% CI [0.17, 0.40])."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id metacognition-interventions-followup-effects-persist
title Metacognition intervention effects persist at follow-up (g = 0.29) in young children
description Metacognition intervention effects persist at follow-up (g = 0.29) in young children
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 2024
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-19
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — janina-eberhart-2024

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