Mathematical Skills in 3- and 5-Year-Olds with Spina Bifida and Their Typically Developing Peers: A Longitudinal Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preschoolers with spina bifida (SB) were compared to typically developing (TD) children on tasks tapping mathematical knowledge at 36 months (n = 102) and 60 months of age (n = 98). The group with SB had difficulty compared to TD peers on all mathematical tasks except for transformation on quantities in the subitizable range. At 36 months, vocabulary knowledge, visual-spatial, and fine motor abilities predicted achievement on a measure of informal math knowledge in both groups. At 60 months of age, phonological awareness, visual-spatial ability, and fine motor skill were uniquely and differentially related to counting knowledge, oral counting, object-based arithmetic skills, and quantitative concepts. Importantly, the patterns of association between these predictors and mathematical performance were similar across the groups. A novel finding is that fine motor skill uniquely predicted object-based arithmetic abilities in both groups, suggesting developmental continuity in the neurocognitive correlates of early object-based and later symbolic arithmetic problem solving. Models combining 36-month mathematical ability and these language-based, visual-spatial, and fine motor abilities at 60 months accounted for considerable variance on 60-month informal mathematical outcomes. Results are discussed with reference to models of mathematical development and early identification of risk in preschoolers with neurodevelopmental disorder.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".