Fall RRRP predicted spring reading outcomes, with Part 1 predicting decoding and comprehension and Part 2 predicting vocabulary and gains in comprehension and vocabulary¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · 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¶

q3 i? Part 1 of the fall RRRP significantly predicted spring Letter-Word ID and Passage Comprehension outcomes, while Part 2 predicted spring Picture Vocabulary outcomes. → Day 2017 q3 i? When controlling for fall scores, fall RRRP no longer predicted Letter-Word ID gains, but Part 2 significantly predicted gains in Passage Comprehension and Picture Vocabulary. → 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

Separate two-level HLM models tested fall RRRP against three spring WJ-III reading measures in the 282-student sample. The authors report "students who performed better on Part 1 of fall RRRP also exhibited higher scores" on Letter-Word ID and Passage Comprehension, while Part 2 predicted Picture Vocabulary; no effect sizes are printed.

"In the Letter-Word and Passage Comprehension Models, Part 1 of the RRRP significantly predicted spring outcomes (Table 5), such that students who performed better on Part 1 of fall RRRP also exhibited higher scores on both the Letter-Word ID and Passage Comprehension subtests in the spring. However, for vocabulary, Part 2 of the fall RRRP predicted spring outcomes on the Picture Vocabulary subtest (Table 5)."

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

Three additional two-level HLM models controlled for fall WJ scores to test gains. The authors report fall RRRP "did not predict gains on the Letter-Word ID tests from fall to spring," while Part 2 predicted gains in Passage Comprehension and Picture Vocabulary; no effect sizes are printed.

"When controlling for fall Letter-Word ID scores, fall RRRP no longer predicted spring outcomes, which indicates that while fall RRRP predicted spring absolute outcomes on Letter-Word ID, it did not predict gains on the Letter-Word ID tests from fall to spring."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Fall RRRP Part 1 predicted spring Applied Problems mathematics scores and gains, but did not predict spring Math Fluency — related
• Kindergarten DIBELS subtests significantly predict first-grade TerraNova vocabulary, language, and reading outcomes — 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 self-regulation (HTKS) scores predict spring literacy gains in first grade — related
• English oral vocabulary scores correlated significantly with word identification and reading comprehension posttest scores in this severely struggling sample — related
• 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
• Growth in bilingual preschoolers' English receptive vocabulary and oral comprehension during Head Start positively predicts first-grade English letter-word identification and passage comprehension — related
• Baseline reading and untaught Grade 2 vocabulary scores correlated moderately with near-, mid-, and far-transfer comprehension outcomes — related