Intervention studies reported larger effect sizes than cross-sectional studies, and studies including more teaching assistants reported larger effects¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r? · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Intervention studies showed overall r = 0.35 versus r = 0.24 for cross-sectional studies, and a higher proportion of teaching assistants was associated with larger effects (β = 0.22). → Donath 2025

Evidence¶

Donath 2025¶

Donath, J. L., Lüke, T., Tran, U. S., Botes, E., & Goetz, T. (2025). The Transfer of Teacher Training to Inclusive Classroom Practice: A Meta-Analytic SEM Approach. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10081-9

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r?

Meta-regression moderator analyses across 1084 effect sizes. The article also reports teaching-assistant inclusion moderated effects (overall r = 0.39 vs 0.29; F[1, 1041] = 7.05, p = 0.008, β = 0.22), while publication year, continent, school type, and teacher background showed no significant influence.

"Intervention studies reported larger effect sizes (overall r = 0.35, 95% CI [0.31; 0.39]) than cross-sectional studies (overall r = 0.24 [0.21; 0.27]; F[1, 1041] = 22.36, p < 0.001)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Progressively larger treatment estimates among intervention students crossing engagement thresholds are hypothesis-generating only — related
• AI access raises unaided essay quality in both sessions, while AI-generated text detectable in Session One essays disappears by Session Two — related
• Intervention studies report larger skill effects than cross-sectional studies, but study design does not moderate knowledge, beliefs, or student-behavior effects — related