I don't see what's wrong with a low sample size. That seems pretty standard and it's enough to rule out noise in this case. Almost all of the participants improved and by a statistically significant amount.
They are saying that at the start their intervention group was 15 IQ points below the control group! And post-training the intervention group mostly closed the gap with the control group (but still did not quite get there).
They actually selected the test group for having the lowest score on the synesthesia test. So this fits with my theory of synesthesia being correlated with IQ, but it's also interesting that synesthesia training improves IQ.
I don't see what's wrong with a low sample size.
The usual things -- the results are at best brittle and worst just a figment of someone's imagination.
Almost all of the participants improved and by a statistically significant amount.
Yeah, well, that's a problem :-/
I eyeballed the IQ improvement graph for the intervention group and converted it into numbers. By the way, there are only 13 lines there, so either someone's results exactly matched some other person on both tests or they just forgot one.
The starting values are (91 96 99 102 105 109 109 113...
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.
4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.