Claims

Study-level effect sizes ranged from g = 0.105 to g = 3.166, all positive, with seven studies individually non-significant

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · 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? All 43 included studies showed positive effect sizes favouring the experimental group and/or post-test, ranging from g = 0.105 to g = 3.166; seven studies' effects were not statistically significant. → Kansızoğlu 2025

Evidence

Kansızoğlu 2025

Kansızoğlu, N. & Bekiroğlu, N. (2025). The effect of vocabulary development interventions on cognitive outcomes of vocabulary: A meta-analysis study. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 9(1), 123-148. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202532083

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Per-study Hedge's g values reported in Table 7 of the meta-analysis. The article states "all effect sizes are positively oriented" and lists seven non-significant studies (e.g., Bilgin 2018, g = 0.105, p = .698).

"all effect sizes are positively oriented, indicating an advantage for the experimental group and/or post -test, with effect sizes ranging from g = 0.105 to g = 3.166"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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