The best math-predicting model is specific to mathematics; reading requires a different model¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? When the best math model predicted reading, only Phonological Decoding and WISC Vocabulary were significant, with other predictors negligible. → Szűcs Dénes 2014

Evidence¶

Szűcs Dénes 2014¶

Szűcs Dénes, Devine Amy, Soltesz Fruzsina, Nobes Alison, Gabriel Florence. (2014). Cognitive components of a mathematical processing network in 9-year-old children. Developmental Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12144

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Specificity test applying the best math model (Figure 2C) to the Hodder Group Reading Test in the same sample (N = 98; R2 = 0.39; F = 9.57; p < .0001); only phonological decoding and verbal IQ predicted reading.

"only Phonological Decoding (β = 0.424; p < .0001) and WISC Vocabulary (β = 0.23; p = .017) were significant individual predictors. Other variables showed negligible β values"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Phonological decoding, verbal knowledge, visuo-spatial STM/WM, spatial orientation and trail-making performance are robust simultaneous predictors of math in 9-year-olds — related
• Oral language measures of syntax, listening comprehension, and oral vocabulary do not predict which English learners will struggle with learning to read — related
• IQ and working memory are reliable predictors of academic achievement at the beginning of school when domain knowledge is not controlled — related