Development and interactions among academic performance, word recognition, listening, and reading comprehension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated how the development of word recognition, listening and reading comprehension skills correlates with academic performance over the course of elementary school. The Contrastive Test of Listening and Reading Comprehension and the Words and Non-words Reading Competence Test were used to assess 301 Brazilian students attending the 1st to 4th grades of elementary education, whose academic performance records were provided by the school at the end of the year. Analysis shows a significant effect of grade level on all variables and a pattern of higher scores in items that can be read by logographic strategy and lower scores for items that need orthographic processing. Several significant correlations between measured skills and academic performance were found, though the pattern of these correlations shifted within different grade levels. There were stronger relations between academic performance and more elementary abilities, such as logographic strategy of reading and listening comprehension in the 1st grade, and with more complex skills developing during the next three grades, as shown by the increase of correlations with alphabetic and orthographic strategies and reading comprehension. These data can help guide practices that stimulate relevant skills in each school level.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".