RAN stimulus type (numeric vs. non-numeric; alphanumeric vs. non-alphanumeric) largely does not moderate the RAN–mathematics correlation¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesisr3·q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · 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? Numeric RAN produced nominally larger correlations than non-numeric RAN (β = .04, p < .01), but the authors flag the small beta as a possible type I error artifact. → Koponen 2017
q3 i? Alphanumeric vs. non-alphanumeric RAN was not a significant moderator; correlations were equally strong for both stimulus types. → Koponen 2017 (2)
Evidence¶
Koponen 2017¶
Koponen, T., Georgiou, G., Salmi, P., Leskinen, M., & Aro, M. (2017). A Meta-Analysis of the Relation Between RAN and Mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(7), 977-992. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000182
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3
Meta-regression with dummy-coded moderators and small-sample adjustments. The β = .04 is a moderator coefficient, no effect size printed; the article cautions the significant p may be an estimation artifact, so this finding is effectively null.
"Numeric RAN tasks also produced significantly larger correlations with math outcomes than non-numeric RAN (β = .04, p < .01); however, the statistically significant p (despite the low beta) might be an artifact (type I error) associated with the estimation methods"
Koponen 2017 (2)¶
Koponen, T., Georgiou, G., Salmi, P., Leskinen, M., & Aro, M. (2017). A Meta-Analysis of the Relation Between RAN and Mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(7), 977-992. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000182
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3
The results section lists these four factors and reports each "were not significant moderators." No effect size is printed for these contrasts. This contrasts with reading, where alphanumeric RAN predicts more strongly.
"The type of RAN stimulus (alphanumeric vs. non-alphanumeric), the design of the study (cross-sectional vs. longitudinal), age when math was assessed (at or below 9 years vs. above 9 years), and type of sample"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Math age, study design, and sample type did not significantly moderate the RAN–mathematics relationship — related
- RAN correlates more strongly with single-digit than multi-digit calculation and with fluency than accuracy outcomes — related
- The unique link between naming speed and word reading partly depends on using alphanumeric stimuli; non-alphanumeric naming speed adds no unique prediction — related
- Speed of numeral processing showed a trend predicting fifth grade mathematics achievement, and letter processing speed predicted word reading — related
- RAN correlates more strongly with arithmetic calculation tasks than with general math achievement tests — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
ran-stimulus-type-weak-moderator |
title |
RAN stimulus type (numeric vs. non-numeric; alphanumeric vs. non-alphanumeric) largely does not moderate the RAN–mathematics correlation |
description |
RAN stimulus type (numeric vs. |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2017 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-24 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — koponen-2017, koponen-2017-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.