Claims

The review tutorial yields higher post-training task relevance than the control, but no condition effect on self-efficacy

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2016 · 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.

q3 i3 After training, participants viewing the review tutorial gave significantly higher task-relevance appraisals than the control (d = 1.70). → Hans van der Meij 2016 q3 i? There was no main effect of condition on self-efficacy; the predicted review advantage was not found. → Hans van der Meij 2016 (2)

Evidence

Hans van der Meij 2016

Hans van der Meij, Jan van der Meij. (2016). Demonstration-based training (DBT) in the design of a video tutorial for software training. Instr Sci 44:527–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9394-9

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Post-training comparison of task relevance between conditions in the quasi-experiment. The authors call this finding unexpected because "the reviews did not present new information that could have piqued user interest in the formatting tasks."

"However, after training, participants viewing the review tutorial gave significantly higher appraisals, F(1, 49) = 9.96, p = 0.003, d = 1.70."

Hans van der Meij 2016 (2)

Hans van der Meij, Jan van der Meij. (2016). Demonstration-based training (DBT) in the design of a video tutorial for software training. Instr Sci 44:527–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9394-9

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Repeated measures ANOVA on self-efficacy showed no condition effect; no effect size is printed for this null finding, so equivalence was not tested. The authors suggest the lack of user control may have prevented an effect of reviews on self-efficacy.

"There was no main effect for condition, F(1, 47) = 2.98, p = 0.091. Scores for self-efficacy did not differ before training, F(1, 53) = 2.77, ns, or after training, F(1, 49) \ 1."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id review-condition-raises-task-relevance-not-self-efficacy
title The review tutorial yields higher post-training task relevance than the control, but no condition effect on self-efficacy
description The review tutorial yields higher post-training task relevance than the control, but no condition effect on self-efficacy
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 2016
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 2 — hans-van-der-meij-2016, hans-van-der-meij-2016-2

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.