Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37205065›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

Symbolic and non-symbolic predictors of number line task in Italian kindergarteners.

Carla Meloni, Franco Delogu, Rachele Fanari

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Carla MeloniDepartment of Pedagogy, Psychology, Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
Franco DeloguDepartment of Humanities, Social Sciences and Communication, Lawrence Technological University, Southfield, MI, United States.
Rachele FanariDepartment of Pedagogy, Psychology, Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The number line estimation task (NLE) is often used as a predictor for broader measures of mathematical achievement. In spite of its popularity, it is still not clear whether the task is based on symbolic or non-symbolic numerical competence. In particular, there is only a very limited amount of studies investigating the relationship between NLE performance and symbolic vs. non-symbolic math skills in children who have not yet begun formal schooling. This study investigates the strength of the association between NLE performance and symbolic and non-symbolic tasks in young kindergarteners. Ninety two 5-year-old children completed the NLE task (range 0-100) and a battery of early numerical competence tests including symbolic-lexical tasks, symbolic semantic tasks, and non-symbolic semantic tasks. The relationship between symbolic and non-symbolic early numerical competence and NLE performance was analyzed using a regression model based on the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). Results show that only symbolic semantic tasks are significant predictors of NLE performance. These results suggest that symbolic numerical knowledge is involved in number line processing among young children, whilst non-symbolic knowledge is not. This finding brings new data to the debate on the relationship between non-symbolic numeral knowledge and symbolic number processing and supports the evidence of a primary role of symbolic number processing already in young kindergarteners.

Indexed as

kindergartenersmathematicsnon-symbolic numerical competencenumber line estimation tasknumber processingsymbolic numerical competence

Identifiers

PMID37205065
PMCPMC10185831

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.