Person-oriented and dimensional methods each predicted reading achievement significantly better than the categorical method¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·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¶
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? For ITBS Reading composite scores, both the person-oriented and dimensional classification methods predicted later reading scores significantly better than the categorical method. → 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 analysis in the same 558-child sample comparing predicted versus observed ITBS Reading composites. The dimensional method correlated .287 with later reading scores and the cluster method .232, versus .217 for categorical; t-tests showed the categorical method was significantly outperformed. No standardized effect size was printed for the between-method contrast.
"results from T-tests among correlations with ITBSRead, suggest that the person-oriented method and the dimensional method predicted reading scores significantly better than the categorical method."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Dimensional classification was superior for predicting Opportunity Room visits and suspensions — related
- No classification method was significantly superior for predicting mathematics achievement — related
- Person-oriented classification predicts later GPA significantly better than dimensional or categorical methods — related
- Person-oriented classification predicted days absent significantly better than categorical, with no method differences for days tardy — related
- A mean-classification cut-score method outperformed a contrasting-groups-style mean method because it was more robust to outliers — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
dimensional-person-oriented-beat-categorical-reading-prediction |
title |
Person-oriented and dimensional methods each predicted reading achievement significantly better than the categorical method |
description |
Person-oriented and dimensional methods each predicted reading achievement significantly better than the categorical method |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2007 |
recheck_by |
2010 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-09-27 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — dowdy-2007 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.