Claims

Prompt requirements for each scenario-protocol change differently over the series of problems

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
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.

q3 i3 The mean number of prompts given per scenario-protocol changed differently over the five series of problems (interaction partial η² = .83). → Bosma et al. 2017

Evidence

Bosma et al. 2017

Tirza Bosma, Claire E. Stevenson, Wilma C. M. Resing. (2017). Differences in Need for Instruction: Dynamic Testing in Children with Arithmetic Difficulties. Journal of Education and Training Studies, Vol. 5, No. 6. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i6.2326

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Repeated measures analysis with Series (1-5) and Scenario-protocol (A-F) as within-subjects variables in the trained group; the scenario × series interaction was significant with printed effect size partial η² = .83, and the change patterns are shown in Figure 2.

"A significant interaction effect between scenario-protocols and series was found: F (20, 40) = 10.01, p < .001, partial η² = .83."

Discussion

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.