Claims

The treatment x WMC interaction persists after controlling reading, calculation, and fluid intelligence

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2013 · 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.

q3 i? Re-analysis entering reading, arithmetic, and Raven scores left the significant treatment x WMC interaction intact, F(3,139)=5.39, p < .01. → Swanson et al. 2013

Evidence

Swanson et al. 2013

H. Lee Swanson, Michael J. Orosco, Cathy Lussier. (2013). Does Cognitive Strategy Training on Word Problems Compensate for Working Memory Capacity in Children with Math Difficulties? SREE Spring 2013 Conference. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED563039

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Mixed regression recomputation of the randomized experiment's solution-accuracy analysis adding pretest reading, calculation, and fluid intelligence measures. The article reports these basic-skills variables "did not interact with treatment conditions" while "the significant treatment x WMC interaction was retained".

"The results indicated reading (composite of TORC and WRAT), arithmetic (WIAT) and fluid (Raven) intelligence did not interact with treatment conditions, all ps > .10. More importantly, the significant treatment x WMC interaction was retained, F (3,139)=5.39, p < .01."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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