By Cohen et (2007: 521) al.’s categorisation, this effect size is but again, is stronger than “modest”, that for total scores. The anova results (appendix 25) show the effect of time (factor 1) was highly significant (F(1,48) = 25.495, <0.001), and, as p with the result of the tests of overall scores excluding single-letter grapheme recognition fluency, the interaction of time and group was statistically significant (F(1,48) = 4.600, = 0.037). The test of the mean post-mean scores was p (t = 1.055; = 48; one-tailed = 0.149). df p Further analysis of the nonsense-word recognition data revealed some interesting additional patterns. Table 4.7: Further analysis of Nonsense word recognition scores Pre-test Post test Children unable to recognise any nonsense word 16 9 (Intervention) / Control (9) / 7 (3) / 6 Children recognising 1-9 nonsense words 22 19 (9) / 13 (8) / 11 Children recognising 10-19 nonsense words 6 5 (5) / 1 (4) / 1 Children recognising 20-29 nonsense words 3 8 / 2 (4) / 4 Children recognising 30 or more nonsense words 3 9 / 2 (6) / 3 Total 50 50 (25) / 25 (25) / 25 The most noticeable difference between the two groups was the pre-test / post-test reduction in the number of children unable to recognise a single nonsense word. Of
By Cohen et al.’s (2007: 521) categorisation, this effect size is “modest”, but again, is stronger than that for total scores. The anova results (appendix 25) show the effect of time (factor 1) was highly significant (F(1,48) = 25.495, p <0.001), and, as with the result of the tests of overall scores excluding single-letter grapheme recognition fluency, the interaction of time and group was statistically significant (F(1,48) = 4.600, p = 0.037). The test of the mean post-mean scores was (t = 1.055; df = 48; one-tailed p = 0.149). Further analysis of the nonsense-word recognition data revealed some interesting additional patterns. Table 4.7: Further analysis of Nonsense word recognition scores Pre-test Post test Children unable to recognise any nonsense word (Intervention) / Control 16 (9) / 7 9 (3) / 6 Children recognising 1-9 nonsense words 22 (9) / 13 19 (8) / 11 Children recognising 10-19 nonsense words 6 (5) / 1 5 (4) / 1 Children recognising 20-29 nonsense words 3 / 2 8 (4) / 4 Children recognising 30 or more nonsense words 3 / 2 9 (6) / 3 Total 50 (25) / 25 50 (25) / 25 The most noticeable difference between the two groups was the pre-test / post-test reduction in the number of children unable to recognise a single nonsense word. Of
AAA_EdD_-_THE_WHOLE_THING_%28post_viva%29.docx