Intervening in teachers' expectations: A random effects meta-analytic approach to examining the effectiveness of an intervention
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 63 · Cited by 90
- Authors
- Rubie-Davies, C. M., & Rosenthal, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Auckland (NZ)
- University of California, Riverside (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rubie-Davies, Christine M.
- Venue
- Learning and Individual Differences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-08
- Volume
- 50
- Pages
- 83-92
- ISSN
- 1041-6080 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2488123033
- Cited by
- 90
- References
- 63
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 7.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Learning and Individual Differences (publishedVersion)
- ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Marsden Fund Council
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
- Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
- Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
- Keywords
- teacher expectations, mathematics achievement, professional development workshops, classroom grouping, classroom climate, goal setting, teaching methods, academic performance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
