ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021
Investigating the Dimensionality of Early Numeracy Using the Bifactor Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling Framework.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychometric properties of the second version of the hospital survey on patient safety culture across a regional hospital system of Brazil.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- HBMIRT: A SAS macro for estimating uni- and multidimensional 1- and 2-parameter item response models in small (and large!) samples.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Empirical development and verification of career well-being scale for teachers in Taiwan: Implications for workplace counseling.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The few studies that have analyzed the factorial structure of early number skills have mainly used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and have yielded inconsistent results, since early numeracy is considered to be unidimensional, multidimensional or even underpinned by a general factor. Recently, the bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling (bifactor-ESEM)-which has been proposed as a way to overcome the shortcomings of both the CFA and the exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM)-proved to be valuable to account for the multidimensionality and the hierarchical nature of several psychological constructs. The present study is the first to investigate the dimensionality of early number skills measurement through the application of the bifactor-ESEM framework. Using data from 644 prekindergarten and kindergarten children (4 to 6 years old), several competing models were contrasted: the one-factor CFA model; the independent cluster model (ICM-CFA); the exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM); and their bifactor counterpart (bifactor-CFA and bifactor-ESEM, respectively). Results indicated acceptable fit indexes for the one-factor CFA and the ICM-CFA models and excellent fit for the others. Among these, the bifactor-ESEM with one general factor and three specific factors (Counting, Relations, Arithmetic) not only showed the best model fit, but also the best coherent factor loadings structure and full measurement invariance across gender. The bifactor-ESEM appears relevant to help disentangle and account for general and specific factors of early numerical ability. While early numerical ability appears to be mainly underpinned by a general factor whose exact nature still has to be determined, this study highlights that specific latent dimensions with substantive value also exist. Identifying these specific facets is important in order to increase quality of early numerical ability measurement, predictive validity, and for practical implications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.