No treatment outperformed modeling on adult encouragement barrier self-efficacy¶

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? The comparison (no treatment) group scored significantly higher than the modeling group on post adult-encouragement barrier self-efficacy (p = .006). → Efrat 2017

Evidence¶

Efrat 2017¶

Merav W. Efrat. (2017). Exploring Strategies That Influence Children's Physical Activity Self-Efficacy. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 10(2). https://clutejournals.com/index.php/cier

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Same randomized ANCOVA analysis of the 161 fourth graders: the comparison group exceeded the modeling group on adult encouragement barrier self-efficacy, p = .006, indicating the modeling treatment produced no significant gains on this measure.

"No treatment, compared to modeling, was more effective at influencing a child's confidence in their ability to be less dependent on an adult's encouragement to prompt them to be active during recess, p = 006."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

Motivation — outcome: instruction changes it
Self-Efficacy — outcome: instruction changes it

Teacher's encouragement is more effective than modeling by a competent adult at raising children's adult encouragement barrier self-efficacy for recess physical activity — related

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.