No classification method was significantly superior for predicting mathematics achievement¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · 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? T-tests among correlations for ITBS Mathematics found no significant differences among the categorical, dimensional, and person-oriented methods. → 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 · r1

Null result from the regression comparison in the 558-child sample: R squared values ranged .074-.100 across the three methods for later math scores, and no between-method difference reached significance. Equivalence was not tested.

"T-tests among correlations between ITBSMath and the predicted values using the three classification methods did not yield any significant differences, suggesting that the superiority of any method cannot be established for use in predicting mathematics achievement scores."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Dimensional classification was superior for predicting Opportunity Room visits and suspensions — related
• Person-oriented and dimensional methods each predicted reading achievement significantly better than the categorical method — 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
• ITBS mathematics is heavily weighted toward computation while ISAT contains up to three times as many items on algebra, geometry, measurement, and probability and statistics — related