k=11  N=1250  r=0.411 [0.293, 0.517]  z=6.33  p=0.00000
Q(10)=40.49 p=0.00001  I2=80.1%  tau2=0.0385  PI [0.029, 0.688]
Egger z=1.70 p=0.090 | rank tau=0.273 p=0.283 | trimfill k0=0
leave-one-out: 0.367 to 0.433

SENSITIVITY MODELS
  removing Mekheimer (2026), most influential    k=10 r=0.367 I2=66.4%
  zero-order Pearson inputs only                 k= 9 r=0.428 I2=85.4%
  removing the objective-load study              k=10 r=0.422 I2=82.6%
  removing the three studies with N < 40         k= 8 r=0.367 I2=81.4%

MODERATORS
  pacing contrast            QM(1)=0.11 p=0.740
    real-time   k=7 r=0.428 [0.274, 0.561]
    self-paced  k=4 r=0.391 [0.166, 0.578]
  sample-size meta-regression QM(1)=1.04 p=0.309 R2=0.0%

CONFOUND CHECK (Reviewer 1, comment 7): pacing versus language skill
            
             general interpreting listening speaking vocabulary writing
  real-time        1            2         2        2          0       0
  self-paced       0            0         0        0          1       3
  writing versus other skills QM(1)=1.55 p=0.214
  (Under the ORIGINAL coding the self-paced set was exactly the three writing
   studies, so the pacing test equalled this test: QM(1)=1.55, p=.21 for both.)
