Performance feedback alone is not a statistically significant predictor of training effect size in group-design studies¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In meta-regression across 12 studies, performance feedback alone was not a significant predictor of effect size (β = .68, p = .14), though it explained 19.53% of random variance. → Matthew E. Brock and Erik W. Carter 2017

Evidence¶

Matthew E. Brock and Erik W. Carter 2017¶

Matthew E. Brock and Erik W. Carter. (2017). A Meta-Analysis of Educator Training to Improve Implementation of Interventions for Students With Disabilities. Remedial and Special Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516653477

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Meta-regression model across all 12 group-design studies testing performance feedback as a hypothesized moderator. It was "not a significant predictor of effect size" (p = .14) but explained R2 = 19.53% of random variance.

"Performance feedback alone was not a significant predictor of effect size, β = .68, t(10) = 1.62, p = .14, although it did explain random variance in the model (R2 = 19.53%)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• One-to-one coaching format alone is not a statistically significant predictor of training effect size — related
• Training combining modeling and performance feedback is associated with larger implementation fidelity effects (β = .77, p = .04) — related
• In-person group formats were more effective than online or independent formats for empathy training — related