The effect of min-counting on solution time and accuracy varies significantly across both items and persons¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Min-counting slowed solving by about 2.59 seconds on average, but slope variances for items and persons were significant, and the person-level intercept-slope covariance (r = -.89) indicated slower solvers were relatively fast with min-counting. → Rhodes 2018

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

Model 2 added random slopes for min-counting to the crossclassified EIRT model of the 376-adolescent addition task. The article reports a significant average slowdown and "significant variation in adolescents' efficiency of using min-counting"; item slope variance was also significant (τ1i=3.70 seconds, p < .001).

"The overall effect of min-counting (relative to the use of non-counting strategies such as retrieval) was about a 3 s an increase in solution times (person solution time slope mean, ɣ10=2.59, p < .001). However, the use of min-counting strategies varied significantly across people (person solution time slope standard deviation, τ1p=1.90 seconds, p < .001)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Overt counting, especially min-counting, remained common in adolescents and strategy solution times followed the expected retrieval < decomposition < counting ordering — related
• 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 — related
• Min-counting becomes increasingly maladaptive as addition problem sizes increase — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• EIRT addition-strategy parameters show convergent validity with broad mathematics achievement (R² = .42) but not reading efficiency (R² = .08) — related