Claims

Training in critical-reflective thinking produced no change on the Cognitive Reflection Test

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · 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? A mixed ANOVA on Cognitive Reflection Test proportion-correct scores showed no significant main effects or interactions; all conditions performed similarly pre to post. → Poos 2017

Evidence

Poos 2017

Poos, J., van den Bosch, K. & Janssen, C.P. (2017). Battling bias: Effects of training and training context. Computers & Education, vol. 111, pp. 101-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.004

q3 · i? · causal · r2

A 2 (Test Moment) x 2 (Context) x 2 (Training) mixed ANOVA on proportion correct on the Cognitive Reflection Test found no significant effects (equivalence was not tested). The authors suggest either the training did not fundamentally change participants' approach to new problems, or the CRT primarily measures numeric ability rather than reflective ability.

"No signi ficant main effects were found for Test Moment, ( F (1,76) ¼ 1.86, p ¼ 0.18). In addition, no signi ficant main effects were found for Training, ( F (1,76) ¼ 0.06, p ¼ 0.80), or for Context, ( F (1,76) ¼ 0.14, p ¼ 0.71). All two- way interactions and the three way-interaction were not signi ficant, all ps > 0.05."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-29
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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