EF measures jointly account for 43% of math variance, with inhibition (Tap Test) a significant unique predictor but cognitive flexibility (FIST) not significant in any model¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In the final model, the FIST and Tap Test together accounted for 43% of variance in WIAT scores (adj. R2 = .433), with the Tap Test a significant predictor (std. = .270, p = .010) and the FIST not (std. = .189, p = .093). → Verdine 2014 q3 i? The FIST was not a significant predictor in any of the three regression models (p = .912, p = .372, p = .093), contrary to the authors' expectations. → Verdine 2014 (2)

Evidence¶

Verdine 2014¶

Verdine, B. N., Irwin, C. M., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2014). Contributions of Executive Function and Spatial Skills to Preschool Mathematics Achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 126, 37-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.02.012

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Step 1 of the final hierarchical regression (Model 3) in the 44-child longitudinal sample. The two EF measures jointly accounted for adj. R2 = .433, F(2, 41) = 17.41, p < .001; the Tap Test was significant and the FIST was not.

"These variables significantly accounted for 43% of the variance in total WIAT raw scores (adj. R2 = .433, F(2, 41) =17.41, p = <.001). Again, the Tap Test (std. = .270, t = 2.70, p = .010) was a significant predictor in the overall model, but the FIST was still not (std. = .189, t = 1.72, p = .093)"

Verdine 2014 (2)¶

Verdine, B. N., Irwin, C. M., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2014). Contributions of Executive Function and Spatial Skills to Preschool Mathematics Achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 126, 37-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.02.012

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Model 2 of the hierarchical regressions, in which the PPVT alone was entered at step 1. The FIST again failed to reach significance (std. = 0.105, t = 0.90, p = .372) while the Tap Test remained significant; the FIST was also non-significant in Model 1 (p = .912).

"The Tap Test was a significant predictor in the overall model (std. = 0.235, t = 2.24, p = .031), but again the FIST was not (std. = 0.105, t = 0.90, p = .372)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Executive Function — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Executive function and spatial skills jointly predict 70% of the variance in age-4 mathematics performance without an explicit number-knowledge measure — related
• Vocabulary (PPVT) is not a significant unique predictor of preschool mathematics once EF and spatial skills are in the model, despite alone accounting for 41% of variance — related
• Spatial skills uniquely predict 27% of the variance in preschool mathematics over and above executive function — related
• Cognitive flexibility uniquely predicts mathematics achievement in Grades 4 and 6, with a larger effect in Grade 6 than in Grade 4 — reports the opposite
• Spatial assembly skill measured at age 3 (TOSA) strongly correlates with mathematics performance one year later at age 4 — related
• Higher-SES preschoolers outperform lower-SES peers on math, spatial, EF, and vocabulary measures, except the Tap Test where the difference is a non-significant trend — related
• Cool EF (Stroop inhibition and CNT cognitive flexibility) predicts academic performance, while no hot EF variable does — related
• Cognitive flexibility does not add unique explained variance to literacy or mathematics achievement in Grade 2 — related