Fall RRRP Part 1 predicted spring Applied Problems mathematics scores and gains, but did not predict spring Math Fluency¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2020: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Fall RRRP scores on neither Part 1 nor Part 2 predicted spring Math Fluency outcomes. → Day 2017
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
A separate two-level HLM model tested fall RRRP Parts 1 and 2 against spring WJ-III Math Fluency. The authors report that "fall RRRP scores on neither Parts 1 nor 2 predicted spring outcomes in Math Fluency"; no effect size is printed, so this is a non-detection, not a measured null effect.
"For the Math Fluency model, fall RRRP scores on neither Parts 1 nor 2 predicted spring outcomes in Math Fluency."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- 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 — related
- Conceptual counting uniquely predicts fluency, computation, and applied problems but not story problems; procedural counting uniquely predicts only applied problems — 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
- 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
- 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
- Neither numerosity processing nor figure matching predicts general mathematical achievement — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
rrrp-part1-predicts-applied-problems-not-math-fluency |
title |
Fall RRRP Part 1 predicted spring Applied Problems mathematics scores and gains, but did not predict spring Math Fluency |
description |
Fall RRRP Part 1 predicted spring Applied Problems mathematics scores and gains, but did not predict spring Math Fluency |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2017 |
recheck_by |
2020 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-17 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — day-2017 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.