Ratio-effect scores correlated with mathematics achievement in Experiment 1 but not in Experiment 2 with easier ratios¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2010 · 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? In Experiment 1, ratio effect scores correlated with mathematics test performance (r = .544), but in Experiment 2 there was no relationship between ratio effect scores and mathematics achievement (r = .007, n.s.). → Gilmore Camilla K. 2010
Evidence¶
Gilmore Camilla K. 2010¶
Gilmore Camilla K., McCarthy Shannon E., Spelke Elizabeth S. (2010). Non-symbolic arithmetic abilities and achievement in the first year of formal schooling in mathematics. Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.02.002
q3 · i? · associational · r2
Experiment 2's analysis of ratio effect scores used easier comparison ratios (5:7, 5:8, 5:9) that all should elicit above-chance performance, unlike Experiment 1 where children performed at chance on the most difficult ratio. The authors conclude students across the achievement spectrum focused on number.
"In contrast to Experiment 1, there was no relationship between children’s ratio effect scores on the non-symbolic addition task and their achievement in mathematics (r = .007, n.s.)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Non-symbolic addition performance does not differ by socioeconomic status, though wealthier children score higher on mathematics achievement tests — related
- Kindergarten children's non-symbolic addition performance correlates with end-of-year mathematics achievement, independent of literacy (Experiment 1) — related
- Non-symbolic training improves collection comparison at ratios 1:2, 2:3 and 3:4, while symbolic training improves only ratio 1:2 — related
- Behavioral nonsymbolic numerosity acuity (RT and accuracy ratio effects) does not reliably predict formal math achievement in typical to high-achieving participants aged 6 to 34 — related
- Non-symbolic addition performance correlates with mathematics achievement in a new sample, surviving controls for verbal intelligence and literacy (Experiment 2) — related
- Behavioral ratio sensitivity for reaction time increases with age, with adults showing greater RT ratio sensitivity than children — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
ratio-effect-math-correlation-mixed |
title |
Ratio-effect scores correlated with mathematics achievement in Experiment 1 but not in Experiment 2 with easier ratios |
description |
Ratio-effect scores correlated with mathematics achievement in Experiment 1 but not in Experiment 2 with easier ratios |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
mixed |
newest_evidence |
2010 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-17 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — gilmore-camilla-k-2010 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.