Claims

Pairwise comparison shows the NLP group scored about 3.2 points higher than the control group on the reading posttest

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · 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.

q2 i? The pairwise comparison between the NLP and control teaching methods was significant, with the NLP group higher by the printed mean difference. → Farahani 2018

Evidence

Farahani 2018

Fahimeh Farahani. (2018). The Effect of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) on Reading Comprehension in English for Specific Purposes Courses. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 6(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.6n.1p.79

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Post-hoc pairwise comparison following ANCOVA (Table 4) reports mean difference NLP minus Control of 3.218 (Std. Error 0.553, p 0.000, 95% CI 2.110 to 4.326); the article states this "leading to reject the null hypothesis". No standardized effect size is printed for this contrast.

"the results of pairwise comparison show the significant difference between the control and experimental group of this study (p=.000<.05) leading to reject the null hypothesis"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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