Claims

Omission (no response) errors vary with age but not with reading skill

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2000 · 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? In Experiment 1, no-response rates differed among age groups but showed no difference as a function of reading skill. → Chiappe 2000

Evidence

Chiappe 2000

Chiappe, P., Hasher, L., & Siegel, L. S. (2000). Working memory, inhibitory control, and reading disability. Memory & Cognition, 28(1), 8-17. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03211570

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Error analysis of omissions in Experiment 1's blocked listening span task. Post hoc comparisons indicated children under 10 committed more no-response errors than all older groups; there were no differences in omission rates by reading skill.

"The rate of no responses differed significantly among the five age groups [F(4,624) = 8.59, p < .001). However, neither the main effectof reading group [F(l ,624) < 1, n.s.] nor the age X reading group interaction was sig- nificant [F(4,419) < 1, n.s.]."

Discussion

Learner Variables

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id no-response-errors-age-not-reading-skill
title Omission (no response) errors vary with age but not with reading skill
description Omission (no response) errors vary with age but not with reading skill
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 2000
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-17
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — chiappe-2000

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