Abstract
Non-symbolic magnitude abilities are often claimed to support the acquisition of symbolic magnitude abilities, which, in turn, are claimed to support emerging math abilities. However, not all studies find links between non-symbolic and symbolic magnitude abilities, or between them and math ability. To investigate possible reasons for these different findings, recent research has analyzed differences in non-symbolic/symbolic magnitude abilities using latent class modeling and has identified four different magnitude ability profiles residing within the general magnitude ability distribution that were differentially related to cognitive and math abilities. These findings may help explain the different patterns of findings observed in previous research. To further investigate this possibility, we (1) attempted to replicate earlier findings, (2) determine whether magnitude ability profiles remained stable or changed over 1 year; and (3) assessed the degree to which stability/change in profiles were related to cognitive and math abilities. We used latent transition analysis to investigate stability/changes in non-symbolic and symbolic magnitude abilities of 109 5- to 6-year olds twice in 1 year. At Time 1 and 2, non-symbolic and symbolic magnitude abilities, number transcoding and single-digit addition abilities were assessed. Visuospatial working memory (VSWM), naming numbers, non-verbal IQ, basic RT was also assessed at Time 1. Analysis showed stability in one profile and changes in the three others over 1 year. VSWM and naming numbers predicted profile membership at Time 1 and 2, and profile membership predicted math abilities at both time points. The findings confirm the existence of four different non-symbolic–symbolic magnitude ability profiles; we suggest the changes over time in them potentially reflect deficit, delay, and normal math developmental pathways.
Highlights
Magnitude representation ability is as an important component of children’s math ability (Siegler, 2016)
We further suggest that such an examination may reveal information about potentially different magnitude representation developmental pathways distinguishing between typical and atypical pathways that underpin different math outcomes (Reeve et al, 2018)
Non-symbolic and symbolic magnitude RT and error rates increased with increasing ratios and decreased with increasing grade
Summary
Magnitude representation ability is as an important component of children’s math ability (Siegler, 2016). The fact that research can be cited in support of both claims implies the developmental significance of the relationship between non-symbolic and symbolic magnitude representation and children’s math abilities is uncertain. We suggest this uncertainty may be resolved by examining the relationship between patterns of differences in children’s non-symbolic and symbolic magnitude representation abilities and their associated math and cognitive abilities over time. Given math ability likely depends on both general/numberspecific abilities (Jordan et al, 2013; Träff, 2013); it is important to model different general/number-specific relationships with different magnitude representation profiles. We further suggest that such an examination may reveal information about potentially different magnitude representation developmental pathways distinguishing between typical and atypical pathways that underpin different math outcomes (Reeve et al, 2018)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
