Training benefits vary by week: the second training week shows a significantly lower effect (31% mean difference)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In Experiment 3's randomized within-participant design, the second training week showed a significantly lower training effect than the first, with a 31% mean difference. → Benjamin Gagl & Klara Gregorová 2024

Evidence¶

Benjamin Gagl & Klara Gregorová 2024¶

Benjamin Gagl & Klara Gregorová. (2024). Investigating lexical categorization in reading based on joint diagnostic and training approaches for language learners. npj Science of Learning 9:29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-024-00237-7

q3 · i? · causal · r2

In the Experiment 3 randomized controlled design, readers trained with one procedure per week in random order with at least 14 days between weeks. The week effect was not modulated by pre-assessment reading speed or first-session reaction times (all t's < 1.3). The mean difference of 31% is a percent difference, not a standardized effect size.

"we find a significant effect of training week showing a lower training effect in the second week (Mean difference: 31%; t(31) = −2.93, p = 0.00452)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• A font-change variant of lexical categorization training significantly increased reading speed, but not significantly more than lexical categorization training alone — related
• Intervention duration in weeks and study-quality characteristics did not significantly moderate extensive reading effects — related