Participants answered the VISIGARP inspection exercises with high accuracy (M = 94.3%)¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · designr2·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? The percentage of correct answers on the 27 treatment questions was generally high and did not differ between the simple and complex scenarios. → 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
Treatment analysis of answers to 27 on-screen questions across two scenarios (10 on a one-population scenario, 17 on the three-population Cerrado Succession Hypothesis scenario); not all participants completed all questions but all reached question 22. Mean accuracy was "M = 94.3%, SD = 8.6%".
"The percentage of correct answers was generally high ( M = 94.3%, SD = 8.6%) and did not differ between scenarios 1 and 2."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- University students without qualitative-reasoning experience improved their Cerrado ecology domain knowledge after interacting with VISIGARP — related
- Participants rated the complex three-population scenario as more difficult than the simple one-population scenario — related
- Participants held generally positive attitudes toward VISIGARP but rated diagram layout clarity low while finding layout easy to adjust — related
- Diagram-comprehension scores were already high before the treatment and showed no significant pre-to-post increase — related
- Students were reasonably accurate overall across the nine scored interview questions (M = 6.17, SD = 2.12), with accuracy varying by question type — related
- Undergraduate students classify common GenAI ethical scenarios with high accuracy, with a pronounced ceiling effect — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
visigarp-treatment-accuracy |
title |
Participants answered the VISIGARP inspection exercises with high accuracy (M = 94.3%) |
description |
Participants answered the VISIGARP inspection exercises with high accuracy (M = 94.3%) |
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.