Retention effects are developmentally invariant across students retained in Years 5, 6, 7, and 8, and mostly positive overall¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? A developmental invariance model constraining all lagged effects equal across the four retention groups fit remarkably well, indicating retention effects were consistent across the early-to-middle adolescent period. → Marsh 2017 q3 i? Across the 40 Lag 1 effects (four retention groups x 10 outcomes), only one was significantly negative and 23 were significantly positive; the grand mean Lag 1 effect was .384. → Marsh 2017 (2)

Evidence¶

Marsh 2017¶

Marsh, H. W., Pekrun, R., Parker, P. D., Murayama, K., Guo, J., Dicke, T. and Lichtenfeld, S. (2017). Long-term positive effects of repeating a year in school: six-year longitudinal study of self-beliefs, anxiety, social relations, school grades, and test scores. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109 (3). pp. 425-438. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000144

q3 · i? · causal · r2

The developmental invariance model imposed a total of 60 invariance constraints on lagged effects across the four retention groups in the longitudinal SEM; the article reports its fit was remarkably good, supporting invariance of retention effects. No effect size is printed for model fit.

"Particularly given the large number of constraints, the fit of this model was remarkably good, providing strong support for the developmental invariance of retention effects across the four retention groups."

Marsh 2017 (2)¶

Marsh, H. W., Pekrun, R., Parker, P. D., Murayama, K., Guo, J., Dicke, T. and Lichtenfeld, S. (2017). Long-term positive effects of repeating a year in school: six-year longitudinal study of self-beliefs, anxiety, social relations, school grades, and test scores. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109 (3). pp. 425-438. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000144

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Summary of the invariant and group-specific results: of the 40 Lag 1 effects, only one was significantly negative and 23 were significantly positive; the mean of Lag 1 effects averaged across the 10 outcomes was statistically significant (ES = .384). No standardised effect sizes are printed for individual group-level effects here.

"For the critical 40 Lag 1 effects (i.e., four retention groups x 10 outcomes) based on the first year following the intervention, only one of the 40 effects was significantly negative (.05 < p < .01)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The cross-lagged model holds equally for intervention and control groups and for boys and girls — related
• Full structural similarity of motivational profiles across time was not supported, indicating profile indicator means changed over the curriculum year — related
• The relation between word reading and reading comprehension is largely invariant across age groups 8 to 10 and 11 to 16 — related
• The mutualism model's coupling structure held equally across sexes and age did not directly predict change scores — related
• MLGM model fit failed for the Indiana mathematics test, the sole exception to invariance support — related
• Retention substantially improves school grades in the first year (math grades ES = 1.010), with gains maintained in subsequent years — related
• Grade retention has positive effects on math self-concept in the first year following retention, maintained over subsequent years — related
• When retained students are compared with non-retained students in the same year in school (offset comparisons), retention effects on math test scores are positive — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Retention improves math self-efficacy and reduces math anxiety in the first year, with effects maintained (anxiety showing a positive sleeper effect at Lag 4) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Retention improves perceived positive teacher support, but not perceived parental assistance or peer appreciation of math — related