Before the intervention, experimental and control groups showed no significant difference in self-esteem pre-test scores, though descriptively favoring the control group¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·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? Independent samples t-test found no significant pre-test difference between control and experimental groups on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. → Erkan Cer & Ertugrul Sahin 2017
Evidence¶
Erkan Cer & Ertugrul Sahin 2017¶
Erkan Cer & Ertugrul Sahin. (2017). The Effects of Quality Books for Children and the Metacognitive Strategy on Students’ Self-Esteem Levels. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n1p72
q2 · i? · causal · r2
Baseline comparison of the two assigned groups using the independent samples t-test as printed in the Results section. The article reports no significant difference, with control M=19.50 (SD=2.60) and experimental M=18.62 (SD=1.91); the printed d=.38 is described as "a medium (.38 standard deviation) effect size in favor of the experimental group".
"The independent samples t-test result showed that there was no significant difference ( t (86.05)=1.86, p>.05, d=.38) in pre-test scores between the students in the control ( M=19.50, SD=2.60) and the experimental (M=18.62, SD=1.91) groups."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Experimental and control groups were statistically equivalent in mathematics self-efficacy perceptions before the intervention — related
- The experimental and control groups differed significantly on the pre-test before the intervention — reports the opposite
- Before implementation, treatment students performed significantly below control students on the standardized reading test — reports the opposite
- High and low CT groups showed comparable prior coding knowledge before the AICA intervention — related
- Experimental and control groups did not differ significantly in initial-test grades before the intervention — related
- Before the intervention, the control and experimental groups were statistically equivalent in geometric thinking — related
- On the initial test's application section the experimental and control groups did not differ significantly — 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.