Conceptual counting uniquely predicts fluency, computation, and applied problems but not story problems; procedural counting uniquely predicts only applied problems¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? In models with demographics, domain general, and counting predictors, conceptual counting was a unique predictor for fluency, computation, and applied problems, whereas procedural counting was unique only for applied problems; neither was unique for story problems. → Martin Rebecca B. 2014
Evidence¶
Martin Rebecca B. 2014¶
Martin Rebecca B., Cirino Paul T., Sharp Carla, Barnes Marcia. (2014). Number and counting skills in kindergarten as predictors of grade 1 mathematical skills. Learning and Individual Differences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.05.006
q3 · i? · associational · r2
Hierarchical regression models (Model 2a) in the longitudinal kindergarten-to-grade-1 sample showed counting variables' differential prediction: "Conceptual counting was a unique predictor for fluency, computation, and math problem solving, whereas procedural counting was a unique predictor only for applied problems."
"Conceptual counting was a unique predictor for fluency, computation, and math problem solving, whereas procedural counting was a unique predictor only for applied problems."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Kindergarten symbolic number variables uniquely predict grade 1 math outcomes over and above counting and domain general predictors — related
- Symbolic number predictors account for substantial additional variance in grade 1 math outcomes beyond counting and domain general predictors — related
- Phonological awareness and verbal working memory are the most consistently unique domain general predictors of grade 1 math outcomes — related
- Fall RRRP Part 1 predicted spring Applied Problems mathematics scores and gains, but did not predict spring Math Fluency — related
- Low- and high-performing students make different types of errors and therefore need different kinds of support — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
counting-type-specificity-grade1-outcomes |
title |
Conceptual counting uniquely predicts fluency, computation, and applied problems but not story problems; procedural counting uniquely predicts only applied problems |
description |
Conceptual counting uniquely predicts fluency, computation, and applied problems but not story problems; procedural counting uniquely predicts only applied problems |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2014 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-17 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — martin-rebecca-b-2014 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.