Five moderators of token reinforcement effect sizes: study type, outcome type, effect size direction, publication year, and variance¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2022 · 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? Surveys/questionnaires showed significantly higher effect sizes (p = .007); behavior outcomes were significantly higher (p = .021) and performance significantly lower (p = .048); positive-direction studies improved significantly over time (p = 0.025); 1990s-2000s studies had higher effect sizes (p = 0.047); higher-variance studies had higher effect sizes (p < .05). → Kelly C. Dreger 2022
Evidence¶
Kelly C. Dreger 2022¶
Kelly C. Dreger, Ed.D. and Steve Downey, Ph.D. (2022). Reinforcement Practicality for Middle School Students: A Meta-Analysis. Valdosta State University. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1355660
q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2
Moderator testing within each category for the 31 studies. The article reports the survey/questionnaire moderator at "p = .007", plus outcome type (behavior p = .021, performance p = .048), effect size direction (p = 0.025), year (p = 0.047), and variance (p < .05) as significant moderators.
"A moderator existed where studies that had surveys or questionnaires had a significantly higher effect size during treatment and control phases (p = .007)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Aggregated effect sizes differ by outcome type: behavior highest (g = 2.38), performance large (g = 0.91), motivation small and negative (g = -0.39), none statistically significant — related
- The overall effect size for token reinforcement interventions in middle schools is large (g ≈ 1.04) but not statistically significant — related
- 61.29% of studies showed positive effects of token reinforcement, but only 6.45% had sample sizes sufficient for generalizable large effects — related
- Reporting and publication bias pervade the token reinforcement literature: 38.71% of studies reported large significant effects while 29.03% lacked statistical significance — related
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.