Claims

Participants rated the complex three-population scenario as more difficult than the simple one-population scenario

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2010 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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? Difficulty ratings were higher for scenario 2 than scenario 1, a significant difference. → Anders Bouwer 2010

Evidence

Anders Bouwer 2010

Anders Bouwer, Bert Bredeweg. (2010). Graphical means for inspecting qualitative models of system behaviour. Instr Sci 38:173–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9083-4

q2 · i? · design · r2

Post-scenario difficulty ratings (1 = easy to 5 = difficult) in the 30-participant evaluation: scenario 2 mean "M = 3.07" versus scenario 1 "M = 2.53", t(29) = -2.64, p = 0.013. No effect size is printed.

"The participants rated the questions in scenario 2 ( M = 3.07) as more difficult than scenario 1 ( M = 2.53) ( t(29) =- 2.64, p = 0.013)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id visigarp-scenario2-difficulty
title Participants rated the complex three-population scenario as more difficult than the simple one-population scenario
description Participants rated the complex three-population scenario as more difficult than the simple one-population scenario
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 2010
source_checked 2026-10-20
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — anders-bouwer-2010

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