Hyperactivity and conduct problems were not statistically significant predictors of reading comprehension in this sample¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In the regression model, only peer problems was significant; hyperactivity (beta=.070) and conduct problems (beta=-.015) did not reach significance. → Kaprea F Johnson 2013

Evidence¶

Kaprea F Johnson 2013¶

Kaprea F Johnson. (2013). The Cumulative Effect of Hyperactivity and Peer Relationships on Reading Comprehension. Journal of Education and Training Studies. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v2i1.245

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Multiple regression (N=91) found hyperactivity and conduct problems non-significant; "peer problems accounts for more variance than hyperactivity and conduct problems". No effect sizes are printed for the null predictors.

"In the model, peer problems was the only statistically significant variable (beta= -.309, p<.01). Results indicate that the externalizing variables only account for a small amount of the var iance in reading comprehension scores; however peer problems accounts for more variance than hyperactivity and conduct problems."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Most students in the high reading comprehension group fall in the low externalizing behavior groups, most strongly for peer problems — related
• Peer problems are the only statistically significant predictor of reading comprehension scores among hyperactivity, conduct problems, and peer problems — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Teacher-rated hyperactive/impulsive behavior did not predict any first-grade academic outcomes in children with low number sense — related
• Peer problems show a significant inverse correlation with reading comprehension (r = -.304) — related
• Students with low peer problems score significantly higher in reading comprehension than students with high peer problems — related