The Confusion Fingerprint Index: Cognitive Error Taxonomy as an Adaptive Learning Signal in Learners

Last registered on June 15, 2026

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
The Confusion Fingerprint Index: Cognitive Error Taxonomy as an Adaptive Learning Signal in Learners
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0018879
Initial registration date
June 07, 2026

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
June 15, 2026, 1:55 PM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Department of Cognitive Science, IIT Kanpur (Research Intern)

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2026-08-15
End date
2026-11-15
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Background. Standard adaptive learning systems treat student errors as binary signals — correct or incorrect — and adjust instructional difficulty accordingly. This correctness-binary paradigm, dominant since Bayesian Knowledge Tracing was formalised by Corbett and Anderson (1995), conflates mechanistically distinct cognitive processes under a single label: 'wrong'. The cognitive and learning sciences distinguish, at minimum, Recall Failure, Partial Knowledge, Confabulation, and Interference — error types that arise from different memory mechanisms, carry different diagnostic information, and respond to different instructional interventions. Objective. This pre-registered randomised pilot trial pursues two interrelated aims: (i) to test whether error-taxonomy-aware adaptive learning — in which the cognitive type of each incorrect response governs subsequent question selection and targeted Hindi-language remediation — produces superior 2-week delayed retention compared to correctness-only adaptive learning and standard classroom instruction; and (ii) to introduce and validate the Confusion Fingerprint Index (CFI), a novel individual-difference construct capturing each learner's characteristic distribution of cognitive error types. Method. Ninety students (Classes 6–8; ages 11–14 years) enrolled in three government junior high schools in the Kanpur Dehat district, Uttar Pradesh, India, will be randomly assigned — stratified by school and class level — to error-taxonomy-aware Cognivia adaptive learning, correctness-only Cognivia adaptive learning, or standard classroom instruction. Paper-based NCERT Science assessments — a pre-test, an immediate post-test, and a 2-week delayed retention test — constitute the primary and secondary outcome measures. Expected contribution. This study constitutes the first pre-registered empirical test of cognitive error taxonomy as a real-time adaptive sequencing signal, the first validation of the Confusion Fingerprint as a retention-predictive individual-difference construct, and the first pre-registered randomised adaptive learning trial conducted with rural, Hindi-medium, government-school learners in India — a population of approximately 250 million children that is structurally absent from the extant evidence base.

Registration Citation

Citation
Maurya, Manik. 2026. "The Confusion Fingerprint Index: Cognitive Error Taxonomy as an Adaptive Learning Signal in Learners ." AEA RCT Registry. June 15. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.18879-1.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Three-arm parallel-group RCT. Arm A (n=30): The Cognivia adaptive learning platform with error-taxonomy-aware sequencing — each incorrect response is classified at item-design time as Recall Failure, Partial Knowledge, Confabulation, or Interference, and the next question and a Hindi-language remediation tip are selected based on the error type. Arm B (n=30): Cognivia adaptive learning platform with correctness-only adaptation — incorrect responses reduce difficulty; correct responses advance. No tip delivered. Arm C (n=30): Standard NCERT classroom instruction. Both Cognivia arms: 18 sessions over 6 weeks, 45 minutes each, researcher-administered in groups of 5–6.
Intervention Start Date
2026-09-22
Intervention End Date
2026-11-01

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
2-week delayed retention score (% correct, 30-item parallel-form paper assessment, administered 14 days after the post-test at Week 8).
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
The 2-week delayed retention test is the sole primary outcome. Pre-test and immediate post-test serve as covariates and secondary outcomes. Forms are matched for topic coverage and statistically equivalent difficulty.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
(1) Confusion Fingerprint Index components (CFI-CF, CFI-INT, CFI-RF) computed from session logs.
(2) Immediate learning gain (post-test − pre-test, % points).
(3) Brier score per assessment occasion (metacognitive calibration).
(4) Session attendance and engagement (1–5).
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Three-arm parallel-group randomised pilot trial. Stratified randomisation by school (3) and class level (Classes 6, 7, 8). 1:1:1 allocation ratio. Computergenerated random sequence (Python random.shuffle, recorded seed). The assignment opened only after pre-test data entry. Open label (no blinding of participants or investigator). Outcome assessment (scoring) blind to group assignment.

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Three-arm parallel-group randomised pilot trial. Stratified randomisation by school (3) and class level (Classes 6, 7, 8). 1:1:1 allocation ratio. Computergenerated random sequence (Python random.shuffle, recorded seed). The assignment opened only after pre-test data entry. Open-label (no blinding of participants or investigator). Outcome assessment (scoring) blind to group assignment.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Computer-generated, stratified by school and class, with cyclic within-stratum assignment. Seed recorded and deposited at OSF for reproducibility.
Randomization Unit
Individual student
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
3 Schools – (3 arm Study)
Sample size: planned number of observations
90 individuals (30 per arm/school)
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
To be updated upon enrolment completion
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Cohen's d = 0.40 for the primary contrast (Group A vs. C), with α = .025 (Bonferroni-corrected) and power = 0.76 (G*Power 3.1)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number