Claims

A smaller student subset showed a similar STEMscopes advantage on the NWEA MAP Growth science assessment (effect size +0.17)

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2024 · 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 i1 On the NWEA MAP Growth science assessment, a smaller number of students showed results similar to the STAAR finding, with an effect size of +0.17. → STEMscopes evidence rating summary 2024

Evidence

STEMscopes evidence rating summary 2024

STEMscopes evidence rating summary. (2024). Evidence rating: promising. https://www.stemscopes.com

q2 · i1 · causal · r2

The same quasi-experimental study reported a secondary outcome on the NWEA MAP Growth science assessment, described as "Similar results" with "a smaller number of students" and an effect size of +0.17.

"Similar results were seen with a smaller number of students on the NWEA MAP Growth science assessment (effect size = +0.17)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id stemscopes-nwea-map-similar-result
title A smaller student subset showed a similar STEMscopes advantage on the NWEA MAP Growth science assessment (effect size +0.17)
description A smaller student subset showed a similar STEMscopes advantage on the NWEA MAP Growth science assessment (effect size +0.17)
status review
evidence_strength weak
newest_evidence 2024
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-07
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — stemscopes-evidence-rating-summary-2024

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