↓ Skip to main content

Mathematics and reading difficulty subtypes: minor phonological influences on mathematics for 5–7-years-old

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Mathematics and reading difficulty subtypes: minor phonological influences on mathematics for 5–7-years-old
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00221
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie A. Jordan, Judith Wylie, Gerry Mulhern

Abstract

Linguistic influences in mathematics have previously been explored through subtyping methodology and by taking advantage of the componential nature of mathematics and variations in language requirements that exist across tasks. The present longitudinal investigation aimed to examine the language requirements of mathematical tasks in young children aged 5-7 years. Initially, 256 children were screened for mathematics and reading difficulties (RDs) using standardized measures. Those scoring at or below the 35th percentile on either dimension were classified as having difficulty. From this screening, 115 children were allocated to each of the mathematical difficulty (MD; n = 26), MDRD (n = 32), RD (n = 22) and typically achieving (n = 35) subtypes. These children were tested at four time points, separated by 6 monthly intervals, on a battery of seven mathematical tasks. Growth curve analysis indicated that, in contrast to previous research on older children, young children with MD and MDRD had very similar patterns of development on all mathematical tasks. Overall, the subtype comparisons suggested that language played only a minor mediating role in most tasks, and this was secondary in importance to non-verbal skills. Correlational evidence suggested that children from the different subtypes could have been using different mixes of verbal and non-verbal strategies to solve the mathematical problems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 53 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 16%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 7 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 45%
Social Sciences 8 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 10 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 March 2015.
All research outputs
#13,936,629
of 22,792,160 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#14,124
of 29,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,638
of 257,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#281
of 435 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,792,160 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,702 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 257,878 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 435 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.