Dot comparison performance no longer predicts mathematics achievement once inhibition skill is accounted for, but inhibition explains variance over and above dot comparison¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In hierarchical regressions, dot comparison w score did not significantly improve model fit when added after inhibition, while the inhibition score added significant variance over dot comparison performance. → Gilmore C 2013

Evidence¶

Gilmore C 2013¶

Gilmore C, Attridge N, Clayton S, Cragg L, Johnson S, Marlow N, Simms V, Inglis M. (2013). Individual Differences in Inhibitory Control, Not Non-Verbal Number Acuity, Correlate with Mathematics Achievement. PLoS ONE 8(6): e67374. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067374

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Experiment 2 hierarchical regression with 71 children aged 7.8-10.5 years using WIAT-II Numerical Operations, dot comparison w scores, and NEPSY-II inhibition and naming scores. The inhibition score (β = .37) rather than the naming score was the significant predictor.

"dot comparison performance did not explain significant variance in mathematics achievement once performance on the inhibition task had been taken into account, but inhibitory control explained significant additional variance over and above that accounted for by dot comparison performance."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Interference suppression, but not response inhibition, relates to academic achievement and schooling skills — related
• Mathematics achievement is more strongly related to inhibition measured in numerical than non-numerical contexts — related
• Inhibition does not uniquely predict arithmetic fact retrieval above numerical magnitude processing — related