A minority of adolescents were model-predicted to benefit greatly from min-counting yet used it significantly less often than peers and scored about one standard deviation below average in broad math achievement¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · 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? Seventeen adolescents (9 solution-time only, 8 dual benefiters) were predicted extreme min-counting benefits, yet used it less than peers (t(186) = −4.51, p < .001) and relied on immature sum, max, and finger counting (t(186) = 5.80, p < .001). → Rhodes 2018 q3 i? Min-benefiters scored significantly lower on broad math (mean standard score = 83.75; t(180) = 21.74, p < .001), about one standard deviation below average. → Rhodes 2018 (2)

Evidence¶

Rhodes 2018¶

Rhodes, K. T., Lukowski, S., Branum-Martin, L., Opfer, J., Geary, D. C., & Petrill, S. A. (2018). Individual Differences in Addition Strategy Choice: A Psychometric Evaluation. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11360214/

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Post hoc group comparison of the 17 model-predicted min-benefiters against peers in the 376-adolescent sample. The article attributes their benefit to reliance on "especially immature (given their age) sum and max counting strategies and even finger counting".

"Surprisingly, those adolescents who were model predicted to benefit the most from min-counting used this strategy significantly less often than their peers (t(186) = −4.51, p < .001), suggesting maladaptive strategy choices"

Rhodes 2018 (2)¶

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Comparison of min-benefiters' Woodcock-Johnson III standard scores with peers. None had identified mathematical learning difficulties; the authors describe them as "garden variety low achievers" with continuously distributed EIRT parameters, not a distinct cluster.

"These adolescents were about one standard deviation below average standard math achievement scores; calculations (mean standard score = 86.70; t(185) = 15.78, p < .001), applied problem-solving (mean standard score = 89.50; t(181) = 16.87, p < .001), math fluency (mean standard score = 85.12; t(186) = 18.93, p < .001), and broad mathematics (mean standard score = 83.75; t(180) = 21.74, p < .001)."

Discussion¶

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`min-benefiters-low-achievement-immature-strategies`
`title`	`A minority of adolescents were model-predicted to benefit greatly from min-counting yet used it significantly less often than peers and scored about one standard deviation below average in broad math achievement`
`description`	`A minority of adolescents were model-predicted to benefit greatly from min-counting yet used it significantly less often than peers and scored about one standard deviation below average in broad math achievement`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`moderate`
`newest_evidence`	`2018`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-24`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	2 — `rhodes-2018`, `rhodes-2018-2`

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