Neither static nor dynamic series completion measures significantly predicted spelling achievement¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2022: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The ordinal regression for spelling showed no significant relationships between the static and dynamic series completion scores and spelling scores (prompts p = 0.222). → Kirsten W. J. Touw 2019

Evidence¶

Kirsten W. J. Touw 2019¶

Kirsten W. J. Touw, Bart Vogelaar, Merel Bakker, Wilma C. M. Resing. (2019). Using electronic technology in the dynamic testing of young primary school children: predicting school achievement. Education Tech Research Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09655-6

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Third ordinal regression in the training condition (spelling N = 77); the final model improved on the intercept-only model (χ²(3) = 10.25, p = 0.017) but no predictor was significant, with the prompts estimate p = 0.222.

"The parameter estimates, however, showed no significant relationships between the static and dynamic series completion scores and spelling scores"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The Bias Index significantly predicts all four WIAT-II achievement measures, with over-confidence associated with lower achievement — related
• The number of prompts children needed during training predicted mathematics and technical reading achievement, while static pre- and post-test scores did not — related