Students who received study reminders did not study more frequently overall than control students who never received reminders¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The Reminder Group and Control Group did not differ in their likelihood of studying on a given day (b = −0.64, p = 0.106); equivalence was not tested. → Lea Nobbe 2024

Evidence¶

Lea Nobbe 2024¶

Lea Nobbe, Jasmin Breitwieser, Daniel Biedermann & Garvin Brod. (2024). Smartphone-based study reminders can be a double-edged sword. npj Science of Learning 9:40. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-024-00253-7

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Between-group logistic mixed-effects model on daily log-file data in the same preregistered intervention (n = 42 Control, n = 43 Reminder). The article reports the groups "did not differ in their likelihood to study on a given day" (p = 0.106); no effect size is printed.

"the Reminder and Control Group did not differ in their likelihood to study on a given day ( b = −0.64, 95% CI [−1.41, 0.14], χ2(1) = 2.56,p = 0.106)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Reminder and control groups did not differ in vocabulary test performance, and the test data were too noisy to reliably test the study-frequency–performance link — related
• The likelihood of studying on reminder-free days decreased more rapidly over time for reminded students than for control students (non-significant exploratory trend) — related
• In two studies of children aged 10–12 and 9–13, students were more likely to study vocabulary on days they received a mobile-app study reminder than on days they did not — related
• On days without reminders, reminded students were significantly less likely to study vocabulary than control students, suggesting overreliance on reminders — related