Abstract
This study investigated reliability and validity evidence regarding the Early Numeracy test (EN-test) in a sample of 1139 Swedish-speaking children (587 girls) in kindergarten (n = 361), first grade (n = 321), and second grade (n = 457). Structural validity evidence was established through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which showed that a four-factor model fit the data significantly better than a one-factor or two-factor model. The known-group and cross-cultural validity were established through multigroup CFAs, finding that the four-factor model fit the gender, age and language groups equally well. Internal consistency for the test and sub-skills varied from good to excellent. The EN-test can be considered as an appropriate assessment to identify children at risk for mathematical learning difficulties.
Highlights
Numeracy skills are vital for later learning in mathematics (Aunola, Leskinen, & Nurmi, 2006; Jordan, Fuchs, & Dyson, 2015)
To underpin the value of the Early Numeracy test (EN-test), we looked at early numeracy tests with good predictive value and assessments that are useable regardless national curriculum and focus at identifying children at risk for mathematical learning difficulties in kindergarten and first grades
The four-factor model reflected the core group model: symbolic and non-symbolic number knowledge (NK), understanding mathematical relations (MR), counting skills (CS), and basic skills in arithmetic (BA). This model was compared to a one-factor model representing an overall numerical skills factor model and a three-factor model where NK and MR were combined into one factor, which is consistent with the Krajewski and Schneider (2009) model
Summary
Numeracy skills are vital for later learning in mathematics (Aunola, Leskinen, & Nurmi, 2006; Jordan, Fuchs, & Dyson, 2015). Identification of children at risk is essential to prevent mathematical learning difficulties (Gersten, Clarke, Haymond, & Jordan, 2011), but it requires valid and reliable assessment tools (Aunio, 2019; Purpura & Lonigan, 2015). Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) has been suggested as a reliable and valid measure of children’s performance, as it combines the advantages of standardized achievement tests and curriculum-based assessments developed by teachers, and it strives to minimize the gap between the measurement and instruction (Fuchs, 2016). The reliability and validity of the Early Numeracy test (EN-test) for identifying children at risk for mathematical learning difficulties were evaluated.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
