Claims

Children in the Accuracy instruction profile have lower initial math achievement than children in the General profile

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? The four profiles differed on the initial CITO math achievement test (X²(3) = 9.12, p = .028), with the Accuracy profile scoring significantly lower than the General profile (z = -2.95, p = .003). → Bosma et al. 2017

Evidence

Bosma et al. 2017

Tirza Bosma, Claire E. Stevenson, Wilma C. M. Resing. (2017). Differences in Need for Instruction: Dynamic Testing in Children with Arithmetic Difficulties. Journal of Education and Training Studies, Vol. 5, No. 6. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i6.2326

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Kruskal-Wallis analysis comparing the four instruction profiles on cognitive functioning and achievement measures; only the CITO math test differentiated the profiles. Mann-Whitney follow-up showed the Accuracy profile "had significantly lower levels on the CITO-math achievement task" than the General profile (z = -2.95, p = .003).

"A significant difference between the children allocated to the four profiles was found for the initial CITO- math achievement test: X2 (3) = 9. 12, p = .028."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.