Claims

In the second phase of the year, there was no significant difference in growth rate between the intervention and comparison groups

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
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.

q2 i? The Condition slope for the second phase was not significant (p = .531), so the groups did not differ in rate of growth after the transition. → Krawec 2017

Evidence

Krawec 2017

Krawec, J., & Huang, J. (2017). Modifying a Research-Based Problem-Solving Intervention to Improve the Problem-Solving Performance of Fifth and Sixth Graders With and Without Learning Disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(4), 468–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219416645565

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Piecewise growth model analysis of the same CBM data; Table 4 prints the phase 2 Condition estimate as −.090 (SE = .144, p = .531). The article reports no significant difference; equivalence was not tested.

"In the second phase, there was no significant difference in rate of growth between comparison and intervention groups."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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