Abstract
Different math indices can be used to assess math potential at school entry. We evaluated whether standardized math achievement (TEMA-2 performance), core number abilities (dot enumeration, symbolic magnitude comparison), non-verbal intelligence (NVIQ) and visuo-spatial working memory (VSWM), in combination or separately, predicted mental addition problem solving speed over time. We assessed 267 children’s TEMA-2, magnitude comparison, dot enumeration, and VSWM abilities at school entry (5 years) and NVIQ at 8 years. Mental addition problem solving speed was assessed at 6, 8, and 10 years. Longitudinal path analysis supported a model in which dot enumeration performance ability profiles and previous mental addition speed predicted future mental addition speed on all occasions, supporting a componential account of math ability. Standardized math achievement and NVIQ predicted mental addition speed at specific time points, while VSWM and symbolic magnitude comparison did not contribute unique variance to the model. The implications of using standardized math achievement and dot enumeration ability to index math learning potential at school entry are discussed.
Highlights
The question of which factors, or set of factors, best assess children’s math learning potential has long been of interests to educators
In the present study we investigated whether the Test of Early Mathematical Abilities Version 2 (TEMA-2), magnitude comparison, dot enumeration, visuo-spatial working memory (VSWM), assessed at school entry, and Non-verbal IQ (NVIQ) abilities, assessed at 8-years, or differently predict addition problem-solving RTs across time
Significant correlations were found between dot enumeration profile and TEMA-2, VSWM, and addition RT over time; magnitude comparison RTs were not correlated with other measures
Summary
The question of which factors, or set of factors, best assess children’s math learning potential has long been of interests to educators. Standardized math tests (e.g., the Test of Early Math Ability – Ginsburg and Baroody, 1990, 2003) are commonly used for this purpose (Ginsburg and Baroody, 1990; Mazzocco and Myers, 2003; Mazzocco and Thompson, 2005; Halberda et al, 2008; Mazzocco et al, 2013; Ryoo et al, 2015). Children’s math abilities have been attributed to general cognitive factors (e.g., IQ, working memory) (Gray and Reeve, 2014, 2016) These sets of findings raise two questions: (1) do standardized math and core number abilities assess similar math abilities longitudinally; and (2) is the answer to the first question constrained by IQ or working memory? These sets of findings raise two questions: (1) do standardized math and core number abilities assess similar math abilities longitudinally; and (2) is the answer to the first question constrained by IQ or working memory? Answers to these questions may provide a framework for how best to assess math potential and design appropriate math interventions
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
