Cross-task consistency and variability in assessing number word knowledge
Résumé fourni par la source
The cardinal meanings of the first few number words are often assessed with the Give-N Task, and children’s knowledge of number words can be represented by “knower-level”, with N-knower representing children who have acquired cardinal knowledge of number words up to N. In the current study, we sought converging evidence for knower-levels by examining the correspondence of knower-level classifications between the Give-N Task and the Point-to-X Task. In Study 1, we tested 69 preschool-aged children and found that children at the higher knower-levels often did not receive the same classification across tasks. Further, children who were classified as having acquired the cardinal principle on the Give-N Task were more likely than subset-knowers to count on the Point-to-X Task, but they did not count very frequently. In Study 2, we conducted secondary data analysis on an existing study that included a Point-to-X Task with different stimuli and more trial types. We again found that children’s knower-level assessed with Give-N was not always associated with above chance performance for that number on the Point-To-X Task. These data suggest that knower-levels may adequately capture cardinal number knowledge for very small numbers but not for higher numbers. We discuss the practical implications of these findings and highlight a need for future studies to adopt a multi-method approach to establish a robust pattern of children’s number word acquisition.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Cross-task consistency and variability in assessing number word knowledge
- Date Crossref
- 03/10/2024
- Éditeur
- Center for Open Science
- Type
- posted-content
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.