Refutation text type shows no significant effect on binary True/False posttest scores¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Post-hoc comparisons showed no significant differences between text conditions for True/False posttest scores. → Jheng 2025

Evidence¶

Jheng 2025¶

Jheng, Y.-L., Catrysse, L., Van de Cruys, S., Kendeou, P., Poels, K. & Gijbels, D. (2025). Investigating epistemic emotions experienced while reading refutation texts through a fine-grained measure of emotion. npj Science of Learning 10, 30. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00324-3

q3 · i? · causal · r1

In the same mixed-model analysis of the 56-participant online experiment, the binary True/False posttest (postTF) showed "no significant differences between text conditions"; equivalence was not tested.

"Post-hoc comparisons for mixed models (Table 1)s h o w e dn os i g n ificant differences between text conditions for thepostTF."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Reading refutation texts (standard, positive, or negative) yields significantly higher combined True/False-plus-explanation scores than non-refutation texts — related
• Readers with misconceptions engage in more conceptual change strategies than readers without misconceptions, but only when reading a refutation text — related
• Reading standard, positive, or negative refutation texts yields significantly higher open-ended explanation scores than reading non-refutation texts in adults — related