In the review's coding, equal total and per-condition sample sizes signalled either a correlational study or a repeated-measures experiment, and repeated measures were coded when a pretest entered analysis or a within-subjects design was used¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r? · q1
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? Equal total and per-condition sample size indicated a correlational study or a repeated-measures design. → Allison Zengilowski 2020 q1 i? Repeated measures were coded when researchers incorporated a pretest into post-test analyses or used within-subjects designs; one study's GPA covariate was coded similarly despite no pretest. → Allison Zengilowski 2020 (2)

Evidence¶

Allison Zengilowski 2020¶

Allison Zengilowski, Brendan Schuetze, Brady Nash, Diane Schallert. (2020). Coding Notes for “A Critical Review of the Refutation Text Literature: Methodological Confounds, Theoretical Problems, and Possible Solutions”. Version 2. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22A+Critical+Review+of+the+Refutation+Text+Literature%22

q1 · i? · review · r?

A coding convention stated in the notes: equal total and per-condition sample sizes "represents either a correlational study" or a repeated-measures experiment in which participants experienced both conditions.

"If total sample size is equal to sample size per condition, then that represents either a correlational study, where no experimental treatment was assigned, or a repeated-measures experiment where participants experienced both treatment and control conditions."

Allison Zengilowski 2020 (2)¶

Allison Zengilowski, Brendan Schuetze, Brady Nash, Diane Schallert. (2020). Coding Notes for “A Critical Review of the Refutation Text Literature: Methodological Confounds, Theoretical Problems, and Possible Solutions”. Version 2. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22A+Critical+Review+of+the+Refutation+Text+Literature%22

q1 · i? · review · r?

The notes define repeated-measures coding as applying when a pretest entered analysis of post-test differences or a within-subjects design was used, with the Diakidoy et al. (2003) GPA covariate as a coded exception.

"For one study (Diakidoy et al., 2003), GPA was used similarly as a covariate, and thus was coded as using repeated measures despite not including a pretest in their design."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Coding in the review was non-exclusive, and data from multiple experiments within one paper were separated by semicolons and averaged before computing corpus-level means and medians
• The review's corpus excluded studies that used refutation texts as stimuli but manipulated other variables so the primary purpose was not elucidating refutation-text effects, mechanisms, or moderators
• Posttests were coded as delayed if they occurred at least one day after treatment, with two-delay studies and studies lacking day/week delay metrics excluded from mean and median delay calculations
• Topic counts in the review's coding could exceed the listed overarching topics because misconceptions separated into individual texts were counted as multiple topics