↓ Skip to main content

Longitudinal changes in young children’s 0–100 to 0–1000 number-line error signatures

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Longitudinal changes in young children’s 0–100 to 0–1000 number-line error signatures
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00647
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert A. Reeve, Jacob M. Paul, Brian Butterworth

Abstract

We use a latent difference score (LDS) model to examine changes in young children's number-line (NL) error signatures (errors marking numbers on a NL) over 18 months. A LDS model (1) overcomes some of the inference limitations of analytic models used in previous research, and in particular (2) provides a more reliable test of hypotheses about the meaning and significance of changes in NL error signatures over time and task. The NL error signatures of 217 6-year-olds' (on test occasion one) were assessed three times over 18 months, along with their math ability on two occasions. On the first occasion (T1) children completed a 0-100 NL task; on the second (T2) a 0-100 NL and a 0-1000 NL task; on the third (T3) occasion a 0-1000 NL task. On the third and fourth occasions (T3 and T4), children completed mental calculation tasks. Although NL error signatures changed over time, these were predictable from other NL task error signatures, and predicted calculation accuracy at T3, as well as changes in calculation between T3 and T4. Multiple indirect effects (change parameters) showed that associations between initial NL error signatures (0-100 NL) and later mental calculation ability were mediated by error signatures on the 0-1000 NL task. The pattern of findings from the LDS model highlight the value of identifying direct and indirect effects in characterizing changing relationships in cognitive representations over task and time. Substantively, they support the claim that children's NL error signatures generalize over task and time and thus can be used to predict math ability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 55 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 32%
Student > Master 9 16%
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Professor 5 9%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 3 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 37 65%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Mathematics 2 4%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 11 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 13 July 2017.
All research outputs
#4,220,001
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,137
of 30,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,301
of 265,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#155
of 501 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,281 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
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 265,163 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 501 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.