Claims

Concept formation predicts accuracy judging decimal equivalency statements

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational 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? Concept formation was the only cognitive predictor of accuracy on the Decimal Equivalency task beyond incoming calculation skill. → Malone Amelia S. 2017

Evidence

Malone Amelia S. 2017

Malone Amelia S., Loehr Abbey M., Fuchs Lynn S. (2017). The Role of Domain-General Cognitive Abilities and Decimal Labels in At-Risk Fourth-Grade Students' Decimal Magnitude Understanding. Learning and Individual Differences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.05.007

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Regression for Decimal Equivalency: model accounted for 16.3% of variance, F(6, 120)=3.89, p=.001. Concept Formation B=0.059, p=.022; all other cognitive predictors non-significant.

"WRAT-4 and Concept Formation predicted students' accuracy in assessing whether magnitude statements were true or false."

Discussion

Learner Variables

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id concept-formation-predicts-decimal-equivalency
title Concept formation predicts accuracy judging decimal equivalency statements
description Concept formation predicts accuracy judging decimal equivalency statements
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 2017
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-17
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — malone-amelia-s-2017

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