Dimensional classification was superior for predicting Opportunity Room visits and suspensions¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2007 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2010: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The dimensional method was superior to both the categorical and person-oriented methods for predicting Opportunity Room visits, and superior to the person-oriented method for predicting suspensions. → Dowdy 2007

Evidence¶

Dowdy 2007¶

Dowdy, E., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2007). A Comparison of Classification Methods for Use in Predicting School-Based Outcomes. The California School Psychologist, 12, 121-132. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ896649 doi:10.1007/bf03340936

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Regression comparison of the three systems for behavioral outcomes in the 558-child sample. Dimensional predictions correlated .645 with later Opportunity Room visits (R squared = .416) versus .565 categorical and .542 cluster; for suspensions, "the dimensional method of classification was superior to the person-oriented method" (.371 vs .281). No standardized effect size was printed for these contrasts.

"findings suggest that the dimensional method is superior to the categorical and person-oriented method for predicting the number of OR visits."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Person-oriented classification predicts later GPA significantly better than dimensional or categorical methods — related
• Person-oriented and dimensional methods each predicted reading achievement significantly better than the categorical method — related
• No classification method was significantly superior for predicting mathematics achievement — related
• Person-oriented classification predicted days absent significantly better than categorical, with no method differences for days tardy — related