By Cohen et (2007: 521) al.’s categorisation, this effect size is The anova results “modest”. (appendix 21) show that the effect of time (factor 1) was highly significant (F(1,48) = 43.144, p<0.001), as would be expected, but that the interaction of time and group was not statistically significant (F(1,48) = 3.113, = 0.084). The test of the mean post-mean scores was also non-significant (t p = 1.061; = 48; one-tailed = 0.147). df p 4.9 Single-letter grapheme recognition mean scores Table 4.3: Single-letter grapheme recognition mean scores Group Pre-test Post-test Gain Effect n mean (s.d.) mean (s.d.) size Intervention 25 23.36 (1.75) 24.16 (1.46) 0.80 = -0.45 d Control 25 22.48 (3.65) 24.12 (2.26) 1.64 Figure 4.4: Single-letter grapheme recognition mean scores Cohen et (2007: 521) al.’s categories hold for both positive and negative values. The anova results (appendix 22) show that the effect of time (factor 1) was highly significant (F(1,48) = 20.797, p
By Cohen et al.’s (2007: 521) categorisation, this effect size is “modest”. The anova results (appendix 21) show that the effect of time (factor 1) was highly significant (F(1,48) = 43.144, p<0.001), as would be expected, but that the interaction of time and group was not statistically significant (F(1,48) = 3.113, p = 0.084). The test of the mean post-mean scores was also non-significant (t = 1.061; df = 48; one-tailed p = 0.147). 4.9 Single-letter grapheme recognition mean scores Table 4.3: Single-letter grapheme recognition mean scores Group n Pre-test Post-test Gain Effect size mean (s.d.) mean (s.d.) Intervention 25 23.36 (1.75) 24.16 (1.46) 0.80 d = -0.45 Control 25 22.48 (3.65) 24.12 (2.26) 1.64 Figure 4.4: Single-letter grapheme recognition mean scores Cohen et al.’s (2007: 521) categories hold for both positive and negative values. The anova results (appendix 22) show that the effect of time (factor 1) was highly significant (F(1,48) = 20.797, p