Claims

Trained teams use more reward elements and fewer system-change elements, and fewer solution steps overall, than untrained teams

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · 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? Trained teams included more reward solution elements (17.6% vs 11.1%) and fewer system elements (45.8% vs 73.3%) than untrained teams, and used fewer solution elements per problem (2.73 vs 6.22). → Todd 2019

Evidence

Todd 2019

Todd, A. W., Algozzine, B., Horner, R. H., Preston, A. I., Cusumano, D., & Algozzine, K. (2019). A Descriptive Study of School-Based Problem-Solving. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 27(1), 14-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426617733717

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Descriptive comparison of solution elements across old and new problems for trained versus untrained teams (Table 4). Untrained teams had 56 solution elements within nine problems; trained teams had 153 elements within 56 problems, equating to 6.22 versus 2.73 elements per problem as printed. The authors' interpretation that alignment with precise problem statements explains the difference is offered, not tested.

"Untrained teams used more than twice the number of solution steps for their problems as did trained teams. This suggests that trained teams may have aligned their solutions with precision problem statements and not required as many solution steps to meet the desired goal (and solve the problem)."

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.