Fall RRRP scores are significantly associated with working memory and attention measures, and its wait-for-go score with inhibitory-control ratings, in third graders¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? On Part 1 of the fall RRRP, Memory for Digits Reversed and the SWAN Attention subscale were significantly related to performance, with SWAN hyperactivity showing only a trend (p = .071). → Day 2017 q3 i? On Part 2 (color switch), only Memory for Digits Reversed was significantly associated, and only SWAN inhibitory-control ratings were significantly related to waiting for 'go'. → Day 2017 (2)

Evidence¶

Day 2017¶

Day, Stephanie L.; Connor, Carol M. (2017). Examining the relations between self-regulation and achievement in third grade students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 42(2), 97-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508416670367

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Hierarchical linear modeling of children nested within teachers (282 third graders, 34 classrooms) tested fall RRRP Part 1 against self-regulation measures. The authors report that "both Memory for Digits and the SWAN Attention subscale were significantly related" to Part 1 performance (unstandardized HLM coefficients .069 for Memory for Digits Reversed and −.150 for SWAN Attention); SWAN inhibitory-control (hyperactivity) ratings showed only a nonsignificant trend (p = .071). No standardized effect sizes are printed.

"On Part 1 of the RRRP, both Memory for Digits and the SWAN Attention subscale were significantly related to performance on the fall RRRP (Table 3). Ratings of inhibitory control on the SWAN indicated a trend (p =.071)."

Day 2017 (2)¶

Day, Stephanie L.; Connor, Carol M. (2017). Examining the relations between self-regulation and achievement in third grade students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 42(2), 97-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508416670367

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Two further HLM models in the same sample tested fall RRRP Part 2 and the 'wait for go' score. The authors report that "only Memory for Digits was significantly and positively associated" with Part 2, and only SWAN inhibitory-control ratings were significantly related to waiting for 'go'. The tables print unstandardized HLM coefficients (0.079 for Memory for Digits Reversed on Part 2; −0.846 for SWAN hyperactivity/inhibitory-control ratings on wait-for-go) but no standardized effect sizes.

"For Part 2 (color switch) of the fall RRRP, only Memory for Digits was significantly and positively associated with performance on Part 2 of the RRRP (Table 3). Finally, a third model was run for ‘wait for go,’ which was designed to capture inhibitory control. In this model, only ratings of inhibitory control were significantly related to children’s ability to wait for “go” (Table 4)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Attention — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Attention is more strongly associated with reading and cognitive measures than hyperactivity, which correlates mainly with phonemic decoding and memory — related
• Children's ability to wait for 'go' on the RRRP was not a significant predictor of any academic outcome and was removed from the models — related
• Fall RRRP Part 1 predicted spring Applied Problems mathematics scores and gains, but did not predict spring Math Fluency — related
• RRRP scores were fairly stable across fall to spring in third grade, with a slight decrease in Part 1 and no change in Part 2 — related
• Fall RRRP predicted spring reading outcomes, with Part 1 predicting decoding and comprehension and Part 2 predicting vocabulary and gains in comprehension and vocabulary — related