↓ Skip to main content

Analyzing Global Components in Developmental Dyscalculia and Dyslexia

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

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
Analyzing Global Components in Developmental Dyscalculia and Dyslexia
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00171
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gloria Di Filippo, Pierluigi Zoccolotti

Abstract

The study examined whether developmental deficits in reading and numerical skills could be expressed in terms of global factors by reference to the rate and amount (RAM) and difference engine (DEM) models. From a sample of 325 fifth grade children, we identified 5 children with dyslexia, 16 with dyscalculia, 7 with a "mixed pattern," and 49 control children. Children were asked to read aloud words presented individually that varied for frequency and length and to respond (either vocally or manually) to a series of simple number tasks (addition, subtraction, number reading, and number comparisons). Reaction times were measured. Results indicated that the deficit of children with dyscalculia and children with a mixed pattern on numerical tasks could be explained by a single global factor, similarly to the reading deficit shown by children with dyslexia. As predicted by the DEM, increases in task difficulty were accompanied by a corresponding increase in inter-individual variability for both the reading and numerical tasks. These relationships were constant across the four groups of children but differed in terms of slope and intercept on the x-axis, indicating that two different general rules underlie performance in reading and numerical skills. The study shows for the first time that, as previously shown for reading, also numerical performance can be explained with reference to a global factor. The advantage of this approach is that it takes into account the over-additivity effect, i.e., the presence of larger group differences in the case of more difficult conditions over and above the characteristics of the experimental conditions. It is concluded that reference to models such as the RAM and DEM can be useful in delineating the characteristics of the dyscalculic deficit as well as in the description of co-morbid disturbances, as in the case of dyslexia and dyscalculia.

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 %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Researcher 3 5%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 16 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 35%
Neuroscience 6 11%
Mathematics 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 17 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 February 2018.
All research outputs
#15,490,822
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,968
of 30,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,414
of 331,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#436
of 572 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 331,051 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 572 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.