ArticleScientific reports2024
Concurrent predictors of mathematics achievement for 9-year-old children with Williams syndrome.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Research on mathematics achievement by children with Williams syndrome (WS) has been very limited. We describe the math achievement of 72 9-year-olds with WS, compare their math and reading achievement, and explore concurrent predictors of math achievement using the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-III (WIAT-III) to measure achievement and the Differential Ability Scales-II (DAS-II) to measure cognitive abilities. For both Numerical Operations and Math Problem Solving, mean standard scores (SSs) were in the mild disability range with a full range from severe disability to average ability. Bayesian robust estimation indicated decisive evidence that average reading performance was higher than average math performance. Bayesian multiple linear regression models with informative priors accounted for 60% of the variance in Numerical Operations SS with decisive evidence supporting an effect of Working Memory SS and strong evidence for Nonverbal Reasoning SS and Spatial SS and 71% of the variance in Math Problem Solving SS with decisive evidence supporting effects of Working Memory and Nonverbal Reasoning SS, strong evidence for Verbal SS, and substantial evidence for Spatial SS. These predictors are consistent with those for typically developing individuals, supporting consideration of interventions that have been highly effective for children with math difficulties in the general population.
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.