ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Identifying and subtyping dyscalculia in a sample of children with and without dyscalculia - a data-driven approach.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Dyscalculia is a very heterogeneous disorder. This is illustrated by the fact that numerous possible subtypes have been described in previous studies. Therefore, the present study addresses the question of whether children with dyscalculia form a homogeneous group that can be distinguished from children without dyscalculia or whether distinct dyscalculia subtypes should be assumed. Methods: A sample of 1,015 children was analyzed in a data-driven subtyping approach (mixture model analysis). 93 of these children were identified as dyscalculic (criterion: percentage rank <10) with a standardized test (HRT 1-4) to examine how these children were distributed across the identified subtypes. Various cognitive performance domains that were measured with standardized tests were included in the analyses: mathematical skills (basic numerical processing, complex number processing, calculation), working memory, reading fluency, and intelligence. To check the subgrouping results for robustness, four different approaches were used, which differed with respect to which variables were included in the mixture model analysis (only mathematical skills: Results: In three of these four different subtyping approaches, at least one of the identified subgroups showed significant deficits in mathematical skills and included disproportionately many children with dyscalculia. Furthermore, one of these three approaches (the subtyping analysis at the subtest level based on mathematical skills only) suggests that there may be two subtypes of children with dyscalculia: a subtype with mild deficits and a severely impaired subtype. In one approach (subtyping analysis at the construct level with all variables included), children with dyscalculia were not identified as a separable group. Discussion: In summary, dyscalculia subtypes (as well as children with dyscalculia in general) do not seem to be clearly distinguishable from children without dyscalculia: the boundaries are fluid. For educational practice, this fluent transition between dyscalculic and non-dyscalculic children means that all children who have difficulties in mathematics should be supported and not only those who are classified as dyscalculic.
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.