Claims

Modeling as a training component shows no statistically significant effect on DTT implementation fidelity

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2022 · checked against its sources 2026-10-31 (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.

q3 i? The moderation effect of modeling was 1.35 percentage points and not statistically significant (p = .36): the meta-analysis found no evidence of a difference in fidelity between those who did and did not receive modeling, though it did not test equivalence. → Joelle Fingerhut and Mariola Moeyaert 2022

Evidence

Joelle Fingerhut and Mariola Moeyaert 2022

Joelle Fingerhut and Mariola Moeyaert. (2022). Training Individuals to Implement Discrete Trials with Fidelity: A Meta-Analysis. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 37(4), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576221081076

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

HLM moderator analysis (Model 2) in the 46-study meta-analysis tested modeling as a moderator of the intervention effect. The article reports "1.35%, γ̂200 = 1.35, t(3692) = 0.91, p =.36", a non-significant result; equivalence was not tested.

"For Model 2 (modeling as the moderator), the moderation effect of modeling was 1.35%, γ̂200 = 1.35, t(3692) = 0.91, p =.36. Participants who received modeling had an average DTT implementation score of 90.59%."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
aliases modeling-component-not-significant-dtt-training
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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