ArticleJournal of learning disabilities
Prediction and stability of mathematics skill and difficulty.
Article in Journal of learning disabilities. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does Early Algebraic Reasoning Differ as a Function of Students' Difficulty with Calculations versus Word Problems?Learning disabilities research & practice : a publication of the Division for Learning Disabilities, Council for Exceptional Children · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The present study evaluated the stability of math learning difficulties over a 2-year period and investigated several factors that might influence this stability (categorical vs. continuous change, liberal vs. conservative cut point, broad vs. specific math assessment); the prediction of math performance over time and by performance level was also evaluated. Participants were 144 students initially identified as having a math difficulty (MD) or no learning difficulty according to low achievement criteria in the spring of Grade 3 or Grade 4. Students were reassessed 2 years later. For both measure types, a similar proportion of students changed whether assessed categorically or continuously. However, categorical change was heavily dependent on distance from the cut point and so more common for MD, who started closer to the cut point; reliable change index change was more similar across groups. There were few differences with regard to severity level of MD on continuous metrics or in terms of prediction. Final math performance on a broad computation measure was predicted by behavioral inattention and working memory while considering initial performance; for a specific fluency measure, working memory was not uniquely related, and behavioral inattention more variably related to final performance, again while considering initial performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.