The effect of number relationships instruction on posttest scores does not differ by child age¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q3
Currency · newest study 2013 · 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 i? The Treatment Group × Age interaction on TEMA-3 posttest scores was not statistically significant. → Jung 2013
Evidence¶
Jung 2013¶
Jung, M., Hartman, P., Smith, T., & Wallace, S. (2013). The Effectiveness of Teaching Number Relationships in Preschool. International Journal of Instruction, 6(1). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1085361
q3 · i? · causal · r1
Linear model on the same 73-child sample testing whether the intervention effect varied by age, controlling for pretest. No effect size was printed for the null interaction, so no magnitude is reported.
"A subsequent linear model (Model 3) that included the interactive effect of Treatment Group × Age showed no statistically significant interaction effect (F(1, 68) = 0.12, p = .73)."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Age and Developmental Stage — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it
Related Claims¶
- Number relationships instruction shows no differential benefit by gender — related
- Number relationships instruction shows no differential benefit by preschool registration group (EC, COMM, or PFA) — related
- Math ability on the TEMA-3 is statistically equivalent between girls and boys, with no gender difference in mean, variance, or age-related growth — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.