Claims

Structured tutoring was the most common practice element but was ineffective in about 25% of studies using it, illustrating popularity bias in common elements reviews

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · 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 i? Structured tutoring was the most common practice element, yet 25% of studies using it did not elicit statistically significant improvements. → Engell 2020

Evidence

Engell 2020

Engell, T., Kirkøen, B., Hammerstrøm, K. T., Kornør, H., Ludvigsen, K. H., & Hagen, K. A. (2020). Common Elements of Practice, Process and Implementation in Out-of-School-Time Academic Interventions for At-risk Children: a Systematic Review. Prevention Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-020-01091-w

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Systematic review vote-counting analysis comparing element frequency in effective versus ineffective interventions. The review reports structured tutoring was "used in 15 effective interventions" while "25% of the studies using structured tutoring did not elicit statistically significant improvements."

"Interestingly, structured tutoring was the most common practice element, being used in 15 effective interventions. However, 25% of the studies using structured tutoring did not elicit statistically significant improvements."

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.