ArticleEarly childhood research quarterly
Examining the malleability of young children's flexible attention to numerical and spatial magnitudes.
Article in Early childhood research quarterly. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Math ability is critical to children's future school and career success, and prior studies show that flexible attention to magnitudes (FAM) predicts children's future math abilities over and above other early math skills. FAM broadly refers to the ability to switch flexibly between attending to different dimensions of magnitude (e.g., size and numerosity). In the current study, we created an intervention using number books to test, for the first time, the malleability of children's FAM ability. A randomized experiment was conducted with 116 preschool-age children (Mage = 55.6 months; 54.3 % female) to test our hypothesis that FAM ability is malleable and can be trained using number books. The intervention included four conditions to which children were randomly assigned: size-to-number, mixed, conventional counting, and non-numerical. The experimental conditions were size-to-number and mixed, while the conventional counting and non-numerical conditions served as controls. Consistent with our hypothesis, children significantly improved in FAM task performance from pre- to post-intervention within the experimental groups, but not within the control groups. Furthermore, children in the two experimental conditions combined significantly improved number line estimation scores from pre- to post-intervention, unlike the combined two control conditions. Implications of these findings on the development of future FAM interventions are discussed.
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.