Cited by 64Education, Achievement, and GiftednessEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentSchool Choice and Performance

Analyzing the developmental relation of academic self-concept and achievement in elementary school children: Alternative models point to different results.

Ehm, Jan-Henning, Hasselhorn, Marcus, Schmiedek, Florian·2019·Developmental Psychology

Abstract

The association between academic self-concept and achievement is assumed to be reciprocal. Typically, the association is analyzed by variants of the classical cross-lagged panel model. Results with more recently developed methodological approaches, for example, the random intercept cross-lagged panel model, its continuous-time implementation, and the latent change score model, are not available so far. The present study aimed to test the association between reading self-concept and reading achievement with different models to evaluate whether positive cross-lagged effects can be demonstrated with the alternative models. Drawing on a sample of 2,014 elementary students from Grade 1 to Grade 4, results of alternative models yielded noticeable differences. Support for reciprocal effects between reading self-concept and reading achievement was found using the classical and the full-forward cross-lagged panel models. No such effects were found in the other models. Thus, the reciprocal effect model can be called into question for elementary schoolchildren. The results are discussed with regard to the theoretical assumptions and appropriate methodological approaches. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/dev0000796

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The choice of sophisticated statistical models to investigate reciprocal relationships can have implications for the conclusion drawn.

    “Such studies most importantly also point out that the choice of sophisticated statistical models to investigate such relationships can have implications for the conclusion drawn (e.g., Burns et al., 2020;Ehm et al., 2019).”
  • Achievement is nearly always bound to a specific domain, for example mathematics or reading skill.

    “First, achievement is nearly always bound to a specific domain, for example mathematics (Arens et al., 2017) or reading skill (Ehm et al., 2019;Sewasew & Koester, 2019).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ehm, J.-H., Hasselhorn, M., & Schmiedek, F.
Affiliations
DIPF | Leibniz Institute for Research and Information in Education (DE)
Venue
Developmental Psychology
Published
2019-11
Volume
55
Issue
11
Pages
2336-2351
ISSN
  • 0012-1649 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-0599
OpenAlex
W2974327448
Cited by
64
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1
FWCI
9.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Developmental Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
Keywords
academic self-concept, academic performance, reciprocal effects, reading self-concept, reading achievement, elementary school students, cross-lagged panel model, random intercept cross-lagged panel model, latent change score models
MeSH terms
Academic Success, Child, Child Development, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Schools, Self Concept, Students

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review