Are They Equivalent? An Examination of Task Variants of Approximate Number Comparison

Overview

Journal Behav Res Methods

Publisher Springer

Specialty Social Sciences

Date 2023 Sep 11

PMID 37697207

Authors

Yi Mou

Huilan Xiao

Bo Zhang

Yingying Jiang

Xuqing Wang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Nonverbal numerical ability supports individuals' numerical information processing in everyday life and is also correlated with their learning of mathematics. This ability is typically measured with an approximate number comparison paradigm, in which participants are presented with two sets of objects and instructed to choose the numerically larger set. This paradigm has multiple task variants, where the two sets are presented in different ways (e.g., two sets are presented either simultaneously or sequentially, or two sets are presented either intermixed or separately). Despite the fact that different task variants have often been used interchangeably, it remains unclear whether these variants measure the same aspects of nonverbal numerical ability. Using a latent variable modeling approach with 270 participants (M = 20.75 years, SD = 2.03, 94 males), this study examined the degree to which three commonly used task variants tapped into the same construct. The results showed that a bi-factor model corresponding to the hypothesis that task variants had both commonalities and uniqueness was a better fit for the data than a single-factor model, corresponding to the hypothesis that task variants were construct equivalent. These findings suggested that task variants of approximate number comparison did not measure the same construct and cannot be used interchangeably. This study also quantified the extent to which general cognitive abilities were involved in both common and unique parts of these task variants.

References

Ansari D . Effects of development and enculturation on number representation in the brain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008; 9(4):278-91. DOI: 10.1038/nrn2334. View

Braham E, Elliott L, Libertus M . Using Hierarchical Linear Models to Examine Approximate Number System Acuity: The Role of Trial-Level and Participant-Level Characteristics. Front Psychol. 2018; 9:2081. PMC: 6240605. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02081. View

Chen F, Hayes A, Carver C, Laurenceau J, Zhang Z . Modeling general and specific variance in multifaceted constructs: a comparison of the bifactor model to other approaches. J Pers. 2011; 80(1):219-51. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00739.x. View

Chen Q, Li J . Association between individual differences in non-symbolic number acuity and math performance: a meta-analysis. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2014; 148:163-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.01.016. View

Clayton S, Gilmore C, Inglis M . Dot comparison stimuli are not all alike: the effect of different visual controls on ANS measurement. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2015; 161:177-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.09.007. View

Coffman D, MacCallum R . Using Parcels to Convert Path Analysis Models Into Latent Variable Models. Multivariate Behav Res. 2016; 40(2):235-59. DOI: 10.1207/s15327906mbr4002_4. View

Eid M, Krumm S, Koch T, Schulze J . Bifactor Models for Predicting Criteria by General and Specific Factors: Problems of Nonidentifiability and Alternative Solutions. J Intell. 2019; 6(3). PMC: 6480823. DOI: 10.3390/jintelligence6030042. View

Fazio L, Bailey D, Thompson C, Siegler R . Relations of different types of numerical magnitude representations to each other and to mathematics achievement. J Exp Child Psychol. 2014; 123:53-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2014.01.013. View

Feigenson L, Dehaene S, Spelke E . Core systems of number. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004; 8(7):307-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.05.002. View

10.

Fuhs M, McNeil N . ANS acuity and mathematics ability in preschoolers from low-income homes: contributions of inhibitory control. Dev Sci. 2013; 16(1):136-48. DOI: 10.1111/desc.12013. View

11.

Gallistel , Gelman I . Non-verbal numerical cognition: from reals to integers. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000; 4(2):59-65. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(99)01424-2. View

12.

Gilmore C, Attridge N, Clayton S, Cragg L, Johnson S, Marlow N . Individual differences in inhibitory control, not non-verbal number acuity, correlate with mathematics achievement. PLoS One. 2013; 8(6):e67374. PMC: 3681957. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067374. View

13.

Gilmore C, Cragg L, Hogan G, Inglis M . Congruency effects in dot comparison tasks: convex hull is more important than dot area. J Cogn Psychol (Hove). 2017; 28(8):923-931. PMC: 5213839. DOI: 10.1080/20445911.2016.1221828. View

14.

Halberda J, Mazzocco M, Feigenson L . Individual differences in non-verbal number acuity correlate with maths achievement. Nature. 2008; 455(7213):665-8. DOI: 10.1038/nature07246. View

15.

KIRCHNER W . Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information. J Exp Psychol. 1958; 55(4):352-8. DOI: 10.1037/h0043688. View

16.

Koch T, Holtmann J, Bohn J, Eid M . Explaining general and specific factors in longitudinal, multimethod, and bifactor models: Some caveats and recommendations. Psychol Methods. 2017; 23(3):505-523. DOI: 10.1037/met0000146. View

17.

Mou Y, Berteletti I, Hyde D . What counts in preschool number knowledge? A Bayes factor analytic approach toward theoretical model development. J Exp Child Psychol. 2017; 166:116-133. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2017.07.016. View

18.

Norris J, Castronovo J . Dot Display Affects Approximate Number System Acuity and Relationships with Mathematical Achievement and Inhibitory Control. PLoS One. 2016; 11(5):e0155543. PMC: 4873147. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155543. View

19.

Park J, Brannon E . Improving arithmetic performance with number sense training: an investigation of underlying mechanism. Cognition. 2014; 133(1):188-200. PMC: 4145063. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.011. View

20.

Passolunghi M, Cargnelutti E, Pastore M . The contribution of general cognitive abilities and approximate number system to early mathematics. Br J Educ Psychol. 2014; 84(Pt 4):631-49. DOI: 10.1111/bjep.12054. View