Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Sch Psychol Q. 2017 Aug 31;33(2):272–282. doi: 10.1037/spq0000225

Table 5.

HLM model estimates for positive and negative feedback predicting student spring math outcomes moderated by student fall math performance.

Fixed Effect Coefficient Standard error t-ratio Approx. d.f. p-value
Spring Math (fitted mean) .05 .08 .64 21 .53
 Fall Math effect .77 .04 17.49 175 <.01
 Mins. Inst. effect .004 .01 .78 21 .44
 SES effect -.001 .05 -.04 21 .97
 Pos. FB effect .07 .05 1.4 175 .16
 N/N FB effect -.02 .02 -1.06 175 .29
 Fall Math X Pos. FB -.27 .1 -2.54 175 .01

Random Effect Standard Deviation Variance Component d.f. χ2 p-value

INTRCPT1, u0 .23 .05 21 54.61 <.01
level-1, r .52 .28

Note: Pos. FB = Positive Feedback, N/N FB = Neutral/Negative Feedback, Fall Math = Fall Math Factor Score, Spring Math = Spring Math Factor Score, SES = Student Socioeconomic Status, Mins. Inst. = Minutes of Instruction.