Cross‐lagged relations between teacher and parent ratings of children's task avoidance and different literacy skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Task avoidance is a significant predictor of literacy skills. However, it remains unclear whether the relation between the two is reciprocal and whether it is affected by the type of literacy outcome, who is rating children's task avoidance, and the children's gender. AIM: The purpose of this longitudinal study was to examine the cross-lagged relations between teacher and parent ratings of children's task avoidance and different literacy skills. SAMPLE: One hundred and seventy-two Greek children (91 girls, 81 boys) were followed from Grade 1 to Grade 3. METHODS: Children were assessed on reading accuracy, reading fluency, and spelling to dictation. Parents and teachers rated the children's task-avoidant behaviour. RESULTS: Results of structural equation modelling showed that the cross-lagged relations varied as a function of the literacy outcome, who rated the children's task avoidance, and children's gender. Earlier reading and spelling performance predicted subsequent parent-rated task avoidance, but parent-rated task avoidance did not predict subsequent reading and spelling performance (with the exception of spelling in Grade 3). Teacher-rated task avoidance and reading fluency/spelling had a reciprocal relationship over time. In addition, the effects of teacher-rated task avoidance on future spelling were significantly stronger in boys than in girls. CONCLUSIONS: This suggests that poor reading and spelling performance can lead to subsequent task avoidance in both classroom and home situations. The fact that task avoidance permeates across different learning environments is alarming and calls for joint action from both parents and teachers to mitigate its negative impact on learning.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".