Claims

No significant treatment effect on identifying question types (short-answer Part 2)

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · 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? Part 2 of the short-answer quizzes showed no significant treatment difference; no effect size was reported for this null finding. → Liang 2011

Evidence

Liang 2011

Liang, L. A. (2011). Scaffolding Middle School Students' Comprehension and Response to Short Stories. RMLE Online, 34(8). ISSN 1940-4476. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ925248

q2 · i? · causal · r2

ANCOVA of the Part 2 measure (circling whether each Part 1 question was "right there" or "inferred"; 0–4 points). The article reports the test was not significant; equivalence was not tested and no effect size is printed.

"Part 2 of the short-answer quizzes was not significant, F(1, 158) = 2.78, p > .05."

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.