Phonological short-term memory (nonword repetition) shows a modest unique contribution to multiplication fact performance, while phonological awareness shows no relation¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 2 studies · 2 associational r1–r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · checked against its sources 2026-10-18 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Only the nonword repetition task accounted for unique variance in multiplication facts among phonological measures, but this contribution was small (0.7%) and its correlation was not significant after FDR correction. → Schleepen TMJ 2016 q3 i? No significant correlation was found between phonological awareness (FAT accuracy) and multiplication fact performance. → Schleepen TMJ 2016 (2)

Evidence¶

Schleepen TMJ 2016¶

Schleepen TMJ, Van Mier HI, De Smedt B (2016) The Contribution of Numerical Magnitude Comparison and Phonological Processing to Individual Differences in Fourth Graders' Multiplication Fact Ability. PLoS ONE 11(6): e0158335. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158335

q3 · i? · associational · r1

Hierarchical regression and correlational analyses (N = 63): the NWR task entered in step 3 explained 7% (β = -.28), but its unique contribution was modest and the authors acknowledge the FDR correction over 36 correlations was fairly conservative.

"Importantly, it should be mentioned that only a small amount of variance (i.e. 0.7%) was explained by performance in the NWR-task. Also, the correlation between the NWR-task and multiplication facts was not significant anymore after the FDR-correction."

Schleepen TMJ 2016 (2)¶

Schleepen TMJ, Van Mier HI, De Smedt B (2016) The Contribution of Numerical Magnitude Comparison and Phonological Processing to Individual Differences in Fourth Graders' Multiplication Fact Ability. PLoS ONE 11(6): e0158335. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158335

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Correlational analyses (N = 63) found no significant FAT-multiplication correlation; separate subtest correlations were also nonsignificant (phoneme deletion: r = -.18, p = .15; phoneme exchange: r = -.14, p = .28, uncorrected).

"No significant correlation was found between phonological awareness, as measured by accuracy on the FAT, and performance of multiplication facts."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Arithmetic Fact Retrieval — outcome: instruction changes it
• Phonological Awareness — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
• Working Memory — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Numerical magnitude comparison explains significant unique variance in multiplication fact performance over and above phonological processing, intellectual ability, and general reaction time — related
• Symbolic magnitude comparison contributes more unique variance to fourth graders' multiplication fact performance than nonsymbolic magnitude comparison — related
• Phonological awareness is uniquely associated with multiplication fact retrieval frequency, in both dyslexia and control groups — reports the opposite
• The association between phonological awareness and fact retrieval is prominent in multiplication but largely absent in subtraction at the subgroup level — related
• Inhibition does not uniquely predict arithmetic fact retrieval above numerical magnitude processing — related