Posttest accuracy scores did not differ significantly between the treatment and control groups¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
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.
q2 i? The follow-up ANOVA on gain scores found posttest accuracy scores were not significantly different between groups (F(1,26) = .74, p > .025). → Letwinsky 2017
Evidence¶
Letwinsky 2017¶
Letwinsky, K. M., & Berry, M. D. (2017). Technology Integration and the Effect on Mathematics Fact Fluency in the Middle East. Journal of International Education and Leadership, 7(1). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1153618
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Post hoc ANOVA following the gain-score MANOVA in the Findings section, testing the accuracy dependent variable at the Bonferroni-adjusted alpha of .025. The null indicates no detected difference; equivalence was not tested and no effect size is printed.
"The posttest scores, however, were not significantly different (F (1,26) = .74, p > .025)."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Arithmetic Fact Retrieval — outcome: instruction changes it
Related Claims¶
- Both the control and treatment groups improved significantly in accuracy of multiplication fact answers from pretest to posttest — related
- Gain-score MANOVA shows a significant between-group difference in multiplication fact fluency favoring the control group on completion time, with a large multivariate effect size — 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.