Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42774915›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Normal gains: estimators of learning rates in pretest-posttest settings.

Jairo A Navarrete-Ulloa, Valentina Giaconi, Gonzalo Contador

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jairo A Navarrete-UlloaInstitute of Education Sciences, Universidad de O'Higgins, Rancagua, Chile.
Valentina GiaconiInstitute of Education Sciences, Universidad de O'Higgins, Rancagua, Chile.
Gonzalo ContadorDepartamento de Matemática, Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria, Valparaíso, Chile.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Nonlinear transformations of pretest and posttest scores are widely used in educational and psychological measurement to estimate group-level change, yet the statistical behavior of estimators derived from such transformations under measurement error remains poorly understood. We examine this problem in the context of normalized gains (ngains), a ratio-based transformation used to estimate group-level "learning rates" in pretest-posttest designs. Two standard estimation methods - the Methods: Using Classical Test Theory along with a rencently proposed statistical framework to analize ngains, we show that measurement error is one common cause behind both phenomena. Results: When measurement errors are absent, both Discussion: Such correlations may reflect insufficient instrument reliability rather than any inherent flaw in the transformation. These findings generalize beyond ngains: any nonlinear derived score computed from fallible instruments is susceptible to the same bias structure, and the analytical approach developed here offers a methodological template applicable to other ratio-based metrics in educational and psychological measurement. For applied researchers, we recommend computing both estimators and treating a large discrepancy as a warning sign, reporting instrument reliability alongside ngain estimates, and interpreting pretest-ngain correlations conditionally on reliability.

Indexed as

classical test theoryestimator biasmeasurement errornonlinear derived scoresnormalized gainspretest-posttest designreliability

Identifiers

PMID42774915
PMCPMC13596068

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.