People with MLD show lower number sense than typically developing peers (g = 0.88), with the largest deficits on mapping tasks¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 MLD groups scored lower than controls on number sense, pooled Hedges's g = 0.88, p < .001, based on 427 effect sizes from 82 studies. → Kroesbergen 2023 q3 i? Mapping and numeracy tasks produced the largest group differences in number sense; mapping produced larger effect sizes than symbolic and nonsymbolic tasks. → Kroesbergen 2023 (2)

Evidence¶

Kroesbergen 2023¶

Kroesbergen, E. H.; Huijsmans, M. D. E.; Friso-van den Bos, I. (2023). A Meta-Analysis on the Differences in Mathematical and Cognitive Skills Between Individuals With and Without Mathematical Learning Disabilities. Review of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221132773

q3 · i3 · quant-synthesis · r2

Meta-analytic unconditional model of 427 number-sense effect sizes from 82 studies. The pooled MLD deficit was "Hedges's g = 0.88", significant at p < .001; trim-and-fill adjusted it to g = 0.79.

"It showed that the weighted mean difference of Hedges's g = 0.88 was large and significant, with p < .001."

Kroesbergen 2023 (2)¶

Kroesbergen, E. H.; Huijsmans, M. D. E.; Friso-van den Bos, I. (2023). A Meta-Analysis on the Differences in Mathematical and Cognitive Skills Between Individuals With and Without Mathematical Learning Disabilities. Review of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221132773

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Moderator analysis of number-sense task type within the meta-analysis. Mapping tasks (reference category, intercept B = 1.00) yielded larger effect sizes than symbolic (B = –0.42, p < .001) and nonsymbolic (B = –0.58, p < .001) tasks; numeracy did not differ significantly from mapping (p < .080).

"A comparison between models with different ref- erence categories revealed that numeracy and mapping tasks produced the larg- est group differences, indexed as Hedges's g effect sizes."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• People with MLD show a large pooled deficit in mathematics performance versus typically performing peers (g = 1.52) — related
• People with MLD show medium pooled deficits in working memory (g = 0.68) and rapid automatized naming (g = 0.70) — related
• First graders with MLD are slower than typically achieving peers on symbolic but not non-symbolic numerical magnitude comparison — related
• Group differences on symbolic tasks persist after controlling for number identification skill — related
• Children with MLD and LA are less accurate than TA children on symbolic but not non-symbolic approximate addition — related
• No profile distinguishes more severe, persistent, or specific MLD from less severe MLD on cognitive skills — related
• Children with LA show a less severe impairment pattern than children with MLD, differing only on symbolic approximate addition — related
• Typically achieving children outperform children with mathematical learning difficulties on the SYMP one-digit subtest in Grades 1–5 and the two-digit subtest in Grades 2–5, but not in Grade 6 — related