The Relationship of Working Memory and Inhibition

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 203 (2021) 105014
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Experimental Child

Psychology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jecp
The relationship of working memory and

inhibition with different number knowledge
skills in preschool children
Laura Traverso, Irene Tonizzi, M. Carmen Usai, Paola Viterbori ⇑
Department of Education Sciences, University of Genoa, 16128 Genoa, Italy
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The purpose of this study was to analyze the contribution of speci-
Received 12 March 2020 fic executive function (EF) components to different number knowl-
Revised 13 September 2020 edge skills. A sample of 143 children attending the last year of
Available online 21 November 2020
preschool educational services (Mage = 65.01 months, SD = 3.57)
were tested on five number knowledge tasks from the Numerical
Keywords:
Intelligence Battery and four EF tasks assessing working memory
Number knowledge
Number sense
(WM) and inhibition. First, we examined the interrelationship
Executive function between different number skills; the results suggested that the
Working memory relationship between basic informal skills (set comparison and
Inhibition number sequence) and formal skills (seriation of Arabic numerals
Preschool age and number comparison) was mediated by the ability to link sets
to numerals. Next, we explored the contribution of WM and inhibi-
tion to different number knowledge skills. The structural equation
model showed that WM and inhibition were differentially related
to specific number knowledge skills. Specifically, WM predicted
most components of number knowledge, including the two basic
informal skills and the number comparison, whereas inhibition
contributed to the seriation of Arabic numerals. The ability to link
sets to numerals was predicted only by number sequence, not by
EF components.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: paola.viterbori@unige.it (P. Viterbori).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2020.105014
0022-0965/Ó 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
L. Traverso, I. Tonizzi, M. Carmen Usai et al. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 203 (2021) 105014
Introduction
According to recent developmental theories, the acquisition of mathematical abilities depends on

both domain-specific and domain-general precursors (Hornung, Schiltz, Brunner, & Martin, 2014;
Passolunghi & Lanfranchi, 2012). During preschool, domain-specific skills are often referred to as num-
ber knowledge (or number sense) and comprise both informal and formal knowledge. Informal knowl-
edge includes basic skills that do not involve the use of conventional written symbols such as
comparing sets and reciting the number sequence; formal knowledge during preschool age refers pri-
marily to the acquisition of Arabic numerals and the progressive understanding of the connections
among quantities, number words and numerals (Krajewski & Schneider, 2009; Purpura, Baroody, &
Lonigan, 2013). Domain-general skills refer to abilities that allow children to properly use and manip-
ulate their knowledge. Among the various domain-general skills found to be associated with or pre-
dictive of math achievement, executive function (EF) appears to be particularly important (Arán
Filippetti & Richaud, 2017; Purpura, Schmitt, & Ganley, 2017; Simanowski & Krajewski, 2019); how-
ever, few studies have examined the relationship between specific EF components and different num-
ber skills in preschool (see Table 1 for a review), and even fewer studies have investigated this
relationship in view of a number knowledge model. Because the literature suggests that mathematics
difficulties in primary school can be traced to weaknesses in number knowledge (e.g., Aunio, Heiskari,
Van Luit, & Vuorio, 2015; Gersten, Jordan, & Flojo, 2005), the understanding of factors underlying the
acquisition of number knowledge during preschool years appears to be particularly relevant for both
early assessment of risk factors and intervention.
In this study, we first tested the number knowledge model proposed by Purpura et al. (2013),
which assumes that number knowledge—that is, the ability to match an Arabic numeral to the corre-
sponding array of dots—mediates the relationship between informal and formal knowledge. Second,
we explored the relationship between EF and number knowledge by including working memory
(WM) and inhibition in the number knowledge model previously examined.
Preschool number knowledge
Number knowledge includes a wide range of skills and concepts generally learned before children
enter school that represent the foundations of more advanced skills (Purpura et al., 2013). Informal
number knowledge (i.e., reciting the number sequence) is commonly developed in everyday situations
and activities, including play and interactions with caregivers (Susperreguy & Davis-Kean, 2016). For-
mal number knowledge is generally acquired through targeted instruction beginning in kindergarten,
when teachers encourage children to operate with Arabic numerals, for example, in activities such as
comparing the magnitude of numerals and ordering numerals (Purpura et al., 2013).
Although number knowledge skills (both informal and formal ones) are distinguishable and often
studied separately, they can be conceived as developmentally related. Regarding informal number
knowledge, Krajewski and Schneider (2009) suggested that initially children develop the ability to
compare sets of quantities and independently to verbally recite the number sequence. Next, they learn
to link number words to quantities and understand that each number word represents a given quan-
tity. Last, they learn how to operate on verbal numbers, for example, by comparing numbers or solving
simple verbal problems.
Purpura et al. (2013) suggested a model to explain the transition from informal to formal number
knowledge. Specifically, as Krajewski and Schneider (2009) did for informal knowledge, they identified
a three-step developmental sequence in early math acquisition in which informal abilities (such as
verbal counting, subitizing, and set comparison) are prerequisites for numeral knowledge—the con-
ceptual ability to understand that each numeral represents a specific quantity—that in turn predict
formal math skills (such as number combination and early calculations). In particular, as demon-
strated by Purpura et al. (2013), in this model the ability to recognize and read digits and to connect
numerals to distinct quantities (e.g., the numeral 3 represents the quantity ddd) fully mediates the
relationship between informal and formal mathematical knowledge.
2
Table 1
L. Traverso, I. Tonizzi, M. Carmen Usai et al.

Review of studies on the association among WM, inhibition, and different number knowledge skills.
Authors Participants WM Inhibition Number knowledge skills Other WM associated with Inhibition associated
variables with
Simanowski N = 244 Picture memory Stroop QNC Level I: Number word sequence Naming QNC Level I: Number QNC Level II: Quantity
and Mean ages— task, Complex task, Knock QNC Level II: Quantity to number word speed word sequence to number word
Krajewski Time 1: 5.8 (IN); object span task and tap linkage (indirect effect on QNC linkage
(2019a)a Time 2: 6.3 task Level II mediated by
(WM, QNC I); number word
Time 3: 6.8 sequence)
(QNC II)
Purpura N = 125 Listening recall Day–night Subitizing, set comparison, verbal Age, sex, Set comparison, Subitizing, verbal
et al. Mean age: 4.17 task task counting, one-to-one counting, parent number order, number counting, one-to-one
(2017b)a (range: 3.12– cardinality, numeral identification, set to education, comparison, story counting, cardinality,
5.30) numerals, number order, number rapid problems number order, set to
comparison, story problems, formal automatized numerals, story
additions naming problems
Montoya N = 419 Backward digit Head– Number identification, verbal counting, Mother’s Number identification, Number identification,
et al. Mean age: 4.46 span task toes– applied problems education, applied problems verbal counting,
(2019) (range: 3.42– knees– gender, age, applied problems
5.57) shoulders verbal and
3
task visuospatial
STM

Kroesbergen N = 115 Backward digit Expressive Counting skills (counting words, Language, Counting skills Counting skills
et al. Mean age: 6.0 span task attention structured counting, resultative fluid
(2009) (range: 5.3–7.0) task counting, general knowledge of intelligence,
numbers) subitizing
Gray and N = 80 Delayed Go/NoGo Nonverbal addition, Nonverbal Dot Nonverbal subtractions Nonverbal additions
Reeve Mean age: 4.25 alternation task subtraction enumeration,
(2014) (range: 3.50– number
4.75) sequence
Lan et al. n = 119 (China) Sentence Head– Counting, calculation Age Calculation, counting Counting (in both
(2011) Mean age: 5.02 completion task toes– (in both samples) samples)
(range: 3.12– knees–
6.00) shoulders
n = 139 (United task
States)
Mean age: 4.90
(range: 3.4–5.5)
Note. Ages are reported in years. WM, working memory; IN, inhibition; QNC, quantity to number word linkage; STM, short-term memory.
a
In this study, shifting ability was also assessed with dimensional change card sorting and auditory attention, response set task. The shifting performance accounted for the QNC Level II.
b
In this study, shifting ability was also assessed with dimensional change card sorting and the shifting performance accounted for number order and cardinality.
The model identified by Purpura et al. (2013) is based on previous math developmental theories
that suggested that earlier schemas initially develop independently and then are combined into more
complex processes and emphasized the importance of connecting new information to existing knowl-
edge in acquiring mathematical competence (Gersten et al., 2005; Okamoto & Case, 1996; Piaget,
1964; Resnick, 1989). Children can count and can compare sets, but at the beginning they are not able
to use counting to compare sets. When they understand how to relate Arabic numerals to sets of dots,
they are ready for formal mathematics.
Empirical evidence supported the idea that numeral and formal knowledge may be key abilities in
mathematical learning. Numeral knowledge is a significant predictor of successful formal mathemat-
ics skills (Fuhs, Hornburg, & McNeil, 2016). In older children symbolic numerical comparison is a more
reliable predictor of mathematics achievement than nonsymbolic magnitude comparison (De Smedt,
Noël, Gilmore, & Ansari, 2013), and primary school children with mathematics disabilities often dis-
play specific difficulties with the symbolic numeral system (Rousselle & Noël, 2007). Nevertheless,
to the best of our knowledge, the model proposed by Purpura et al. (2013) has been verified in few
studies (Purpura & Napoli, 2015). Therefore, further empirical demonstrations that number knowledge
fully mediates the transition from informal to formal knowledge are required (Gersten et al., 2015). In
addition, a successful replication of this hierarchical organization of number knowledge may be useful
to examine the contribution of domain-general processes such as EF.
Componential nature of EF
EF can be defined as a set of high-order cognitive processes that allow individuals to regulate their
own behavior, attention, and thinking (Miyake & Friedman, 2012). These processes are involved in
planning, controlling, and supervising goal-directed actions, especially in new or cognitively demand-
ing situations. Recent studies, integrating a unitary and a multicomponential view, have identified
separated but interrelated EF components in adults (Miyake et al., 2000). The three core EFs included
in the adult model comprise inhibition, updating of WM, and shifting; nevertheless, the organization
of EF changes during the course of development. In young children, EF is a relatively undifferentiated
construct (Wiebe et al., 2011), with signs of early differentiation emerging from 5 to 7 years of age
(Lerner & Lonigan, 2014; Lonigan, Lerner, Goodrich, Farrington, & Allan, 2016; Miller, Giesbrecht,
Müller, McInerney, & Kerns, 2012; Usai, Viterbori, Traverso, & De Franchis, 2014) and reaching the
adult three-component structure from 8 to 13 years (Lee, Bull, & Ho, 2013). In particular, at around
5 years of age, according to several studies (e.g., Lee et al., 2013; Miller et al., 2012) using confirmatory
factor analysis, WM and inhibition are separate, whereas shifting emerges as a separate component
from 11 to 15 years (Lee et al., 2013). This suggests that at 5 or 6 years of age, we can reliably assess
the role of WM and inhibition in the acquisition of number knowledge.
EF and number knowledge
The predictive or concurrent link between EF and math performance or achievement is well doc-
umented for older students (Cragg, Keeble, Richardson, Roome, & Gilmore, 2017; Mazzocco & Kover,
2007; Ribner, Willoughby, Blair, & Family Life Project Key Investigators, 2017; Viterbori, Usai,
Traverso, & De Franchis, 2015). Many math tasks rely on the ability to update information in WM, inhi-
bit irrelevant information, or flexibly shift among operations, solution strategies, and notations. For
example, mental calculation requires children to manipulate and concurrently hold information in
mind or update partial and intermediate results (Caviola, Mammarella, Cornoldi, & Lucangeli,
2012); in other math tasks, such as problem solving, inhibitory abilities are necessary, for example,
when the text of the problem contains irrelevant information that must be suppressed (Pasolunghi,
Cornoldi, & De Liberto, 1999; Passolunghi & Siegel, 2001) or when an overlearned procedure or strat-
egy must be inhibited in favor of a new one (Khng & Lee, 2009; Viterbori, Traverso, & Usai, 2017).
The role of EF in preschool number knowledge skills is less clear even though a general relationship
between EF and preschool number knowledge is documented. In general, studies with 3- to 6-year-
olds used a single or composite measure of EF and found a significant correlation between the single
EF score and preschool math mostly assessed as a comprehensive measure (Bull, Espy, Wiebe,
4
Sheffield, & Nelson, 2011; Clark, Sheffield, Wiebe, & Espy, 2013; Verdine, Irwin, Golinkoff, & Hirsh-
Pasek, 2014). Although these studies showed that the relationship between EF and number knowledge
is relevant even at the preschool stage, they were not able to specify the individual contribution of
each EF. Furthermore, as suggested by the model of Purpura et al. (2013; see also Krajewski &
Schneider, 2009), number skills can also be conceptualized as multicomponential and hierarchically
organized. Nevertheless, few studies have taken a componential view of both EF and number skills
in preschool (see Table 1 for a review) to allow examining the relationship between diverse EF skills
and diverse number knowledge skills. Notably, for the aim of the current study, their results are not
conclusive. Some studies found a predominant role of WM (Lan, Legare, Ponitz, Li, & Morrison, 2011),
whereas others suggested that response inhibition was broadly predictive of most number skills and
that WM was only related to complex components of number knowledge (Purpura et al., 2017). These
mixed findings may be due to different methodological approaches and measures used. In fact, most
studies included children aged 3 to 6 years, who are presumably quite different regarding the stage of
development of EF. In addition, although using multiple EF tasks may allow better capturing the EF
construct (Willoughby & Blair, 2016), some studies used only one measure to assess each EF process
(e.g., Lan et al., 2011; Purpura et al., 2017). More important, most studies were not based on clear
models of the development of early math skills but rather used a pragmatic approach based on the
selection of a number of skills that are supposed to be significant during early childhood (e.g.,
Kroesbergen, Van Luit, Van Lieshout, Van Loosbroek, & Van de Rijt, 2009, focused on counting skills;
Montoya et al., 2019, focused mainly on problem solving). In fact, among previous studies, only
Simanowski and Krajewski (2019) referred to a developmental model of (informal) number knowl-
edge. Their results showed that updating was predictive of basic informal number knowledge,
whereas inhibition directly influenced the link between quantities and number words. The impact
of updating on quantity number concept and later math achievement was indirect and mediated by
basic numerical skills. However, they mainly focused on different levels of informal number knowl-
edge and adopted a single composite measure for each level. This made it difficult to understand
whether the different role of inhibition and WM varied according to the level of number knowledge
or to the specific nature of the task. In fact, different results came from studies that have used a speci-
fic measure of number knowledge skills. For example, among informal number knowledge skills, set
comparison was assessed only by Purpura et al. (2017) and was marginally associated with WM. Num-
ber sequence were found to be predicted by inhibition only (Purpura et al., 2017) or also by WM (Lan
et al., 2011). Numeral knowledge, assessed with set to numerals, was included only in Purpura et al.
(2017) and was found to be predicted by inhibition. Finally, among formal number knowledge skills,
number order was explained by both WM and inhibition, and number comparison was explained by
WM (Purpura et al., 2017). Notably, most of these studies (e.g., Kroesbergen et al., 2009; Lan et al.,
2011; Montoya et al., 2019; Purpura et al., 2017) used regression analysis, which does not allow con-
sidering the relationships among diverse EF and number knowledge skills within the same model.
Therefore, a detailed investigation of the contribution of specific EF dimensions to different number
skills within a unitary model is needed.
The current study
The current study aimed to analyze the acquisition of number knowledge in children during the
last year of preschool while considering the contribution of EF. In particular, we considered the mul-
ticomponent nature of both number knowledge and EF constructs.
Regarding number skills, in contrast to from most previous studies, we focused on different com-
ponents of early number knowledge referring to the model proposed by Purpura et al. (2013). There-
fore, our first aim was to replicate this model in the Italian context. Specifically, we aimed to verify
whether basic informal number skills (comparing sets of dots and reciting the number sequence)
are related to numeral knowledge (the ability to link Arabic numerals to sets of dots) that in turn pre-
dicts the understanding of the relationships among numerals such as comparing and ordering Arabic
numerals (see Fig. 1). Conducting replication is essential to moving toward more reliable knowledge in
developmental research (Gersten et al., 2015; Makel & Plucker, 2014), and in this case it may provide
5
Fig. 1. Number knowledge model. (Set comparison is also called ‘‘Which is more between these sets?”; Set to numerals is also
called ‘‘Which is n?”; Number comparison is also called ‘‘Which is more between these numerals?”).
substantial empirical support to previous theories on early mathematical learning (Gersten et al.,
2005; Krajewski & Schneider, 2009; Okamoto & Case, 1996).
Concerning EF, we start from the premise that at 5 years of age inhibition and WM are separable,
enabling one to assess the contribution of each EF component while controlling for the other one in
the acquisition of number skills. In fact, the second aim of this study was to explore the relationship
of WM and inhibition (using EF components score rather than single EF task score) with specific num-
ber knowledge skills. In particular, in contrast to most previous studies, we integrated inhibition and
WM into the previously verified number knowledge model. In fact, the identification of a hierarchical
organization of number knowledge represents a valuable aid to understanding how the two EF com-
ponents are differentially related to different levels of the considered model (see Purpura & Napoli,
2015).
In addition, in the current study, three covariates were considered: age, mother’s education, and
fluid intelligence. Both fluid intelligence and mother’s education are associated with both EF
(Hackman, Gallop, Evans, & Farah, 2015; Pietto et al., 2018) and number knowledge (Espy et al.,
2004; Jordan & Levine, 2009); consequently, we considered that including these factors was necessary
to ascertain the relation among WM, inhibition, and different number knowledge components.
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited in six public educational services located in a region of northern Italy.
The families of 152 children in their last year of preschool agreed to participate in the study. Parents
completed an informed consent form. From the initial sample, 9 children were excluded due to an
ascertained developmental disorder or disability. The final sample comprised 143 typically developing
children (49% female) from 58 to 72 months of age in their last year of preschool educational services
(Mage = 65.01 months, SD = 3.57). The mean number of years of education for the mothers was 13 (5%
had 5 years, primary school; 18% had 8 years, secondary school; 50% had 13 years, high school; 19%
had 18 years, degree; 9% had 22 years, post-degree course).
Procedure
Each child was tested individually in a quiet room inside the preschool by trained graduate stu-
dents during the school day. The tasks were administered in two different sessions that lasted approx-
imately 20–30 min. A fixed order was adopted so that possible fatigue or transfer effects were constant
across participants (see also Carlson & Moses, 2001). The order of tasks in Session 1 was Colored Pro-
gressive Matrices; fluid intelligence measures), number knowledge measures, and an inhibitory mea-
sure (Symon Says). The order of the tasks in Session 2 was an inhibitory measure (preschool matching
familiar figure task) and the two WM measures (keep track task and dual request selective task). There
was no more than 2 weeks between the two sessions for each child. At the end of each session, chil-
dren received a colorful sticker for their participation and effort.
Measures
Number knowledge
All the number knowledge measures were extracted from the Numerical Intelligence Battery (BIN;
Molin, Poli, & Lucangeli, 2007), a standardized number knowledge measure for Italian children aged
6
4–6 years. Five tasks were considered that assessed basic informal math skills (set comparison and
number sequence), ability to relate sets of dots to Arabic numerals (set to numerals), and ability to
understand the relationships among numerals (seriation of Arabic numerals and number comparison).
All the battery’s subscales from which the five tasks belong show adequate psychometric characteris-
tics with high test–retest reliability (69 < r < .89; Molin et al., 2007). In addition, good psychometric
properties are shown for single tasks (.79 < r < .83; Pellizzoni et al., 2020).
Set comparison (also called ‘‘Which is more between these sets?”; 10 items, range = 0–10). In this task, the
child must compare and choose the larger one in two arrays of dots ranging from 1 to 9. Specifically,
the task includes 10 items with the following comparisons: 4 versus 2, 1 versus 2, 5 versus 8, 8 versus
3, 7 versus 6, 2 versus 5, 4 versus 9, 8 versus 5, 9 versus 6, and 9 versus 8. The child received 1 point for
each correct response.
Number sequence (20 items, range = 0–20). The child must count aloud from 1 to 20 in the correct
order. A point is assigned for each correct response. Skipped numbers (e.g., ‘‘7, 9, 10”) were scored with
0 points.
Set to numerals (also called ‘‘Which is n?”; 9 items, range = 0–9). The child must link numerals to their
quantity representation, matching an Arabic digit to the correspondent array of dots, ranging from 1 to
9. Specifically, the child is presented with an Arabic digit and needs to point to the corresponding set
of dots among three visually presented sets. There are 9 trials, and the child received 1 point for each
correct response (expected range = 0–9).
Seriation of Arabic numerals (5 items, range = 0–5). The child must order 1–5 digits presented on cards
from the smallest to the largest. Specifically, the examiner places a set of five cards depicting the dif-
ferent digits on the table and asks the child to put them in order from the smallest number to the lar-
gest number. The child received 1 point for each digit placed in the correct position.
Number comparison (also called ‘‘Which is more between these numerals?”; 11 items, range = 0–11). The
child must compare and choose the largest of two Arabic digits ranging from 1 to 9. There are 11 trials
with digits ranging from 1 to 9 with the following comparisons: 2 versus 4, 7 versus 2, 8 versus 3, 1
versus 2, 7 versus 8, 4 versus 5, 6 versus 3, 6 versus 7, 5 versus 1, 3 versus 9, and 4 versus 1. The child
received 1 point for each correct response.
Executive function
To assess EF, four tasks were administered: two assessing primarily WM (the keep track task and
dual request selective task) and two assessing primarily inhibition (Simon Says task and preschool
matching familiar figure task).
Keep track. The keep track task (Usai, Viterbori, Gandolfi, & Traverso, 2017, adapted from Van der Ven,
Kroesbergen, Boom, & Leseman, 2012) is a WM task that is suitable for assessing updating ability in
both adults (Miyake et al., 2000) and children (van der Sluis, de Jong, & van der Leij, 2007; Van der
Ven et al., 2012). The child is shown pictures, each of which belongs to one of the following five cat-
egories: animals (dog, cat, fish, and bird), sky (sun, moon, stars, and cloud), fruit (strawberry, grape,
pear, and apple), vehicles (train, bicycle, motorbike, and car), and clothes (socks, skirt, T-shirt, and
shoes). Before each trial, the child is asked to pay special attention to one designated category (first
3 trials) or two designated categories (last 3 trials). The pictures are shown in series of 6. During
the presentation of each series, the child needs to name each picture. At the end, the child needs to
recall the last item in each designated category, which requires managing the interference caused
by the other named pictures. During the picture presentation, small pictures symbolizing the cate-
gories to be remembered are shown at the bottom of the screen to serve as a reminder. The child
was given 1 point for each correct response and 0.5 points if he or she was not able to recall the item
and asked to see all the pictures in the requested category again (expected range = 0–9). Test–retest
7
reliability (Pearson’s r) calculated in a sample of 5-year-old typically developing children (n = 57) was
.544 (Traverso, Viterbori, & Usai, 2019).
Dual request selective task. The dual request selective task (Re, De Franchis, & Cornoldi, 2010) is a
visual–spatial WM task specifically developed for preschool children. Several previous studies have
shown that it has good psychometric properties and is appropriate for the assessment of children
as young as 5 years (De Franchis, Usai, Viterbori, & Traverso, 2017; Re & Cornoldi, 2007). This task
is suitable for assessing participants’ ability to maintain information in WM while performing a con-
current task. The child is required to control the given information in WM while performing some
actions on the material and receiving interference from irrelevant information. The participant is pre-
sented with a 4 4 (17 17-cm) chessboard divided into 16 squares. One of the squares is red and is
always located in the same position. The experimenter shows a path taken by a small frog on the
chessboard to the child, who must (a) clap his or her hands when the frog jumps onto the red square
and (b) remember the frog’s starting position on a pathway on the chessboard. The task has five levels
of difficulty according to the number of steps in the pathway: 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. All the pathways include
a step in the red square. The child completes 10 trials, 2 for each pathway length. Before beginning the
experimental session, the experimenter provides practice trials by moving the frog through two
squares. The session begins when the experimenter is certain that the child understands the task. A
trial is scored as correct only when the child performs both tasks correctly (i.e., clapping hands and
remembering the starting square). The score was the total number of correct trials completed. The
minimum score was 0, and the maximum score was 10 (expected range = 0–10). Task reliability
was explored in a sample of 509 children aged 4–6 years; both Cronbach’s alpha (.81) and split half
(.80) revealed good reliability (Lanfranchi & Vianello, 2008).
Simon Says task. The Simon Says task was used to assess inhibitory control (Carlson, 2005; Strommen,
1973). The Simon Says task requires the child to inhibit a prepotent response (i.e., do all requested
actions) in favor of a different response (i.e., perform the action only if the experimenter says ‘‘Simon
says”) (Carlson, 2005). Specifically, the child is asked to perform an action (e.g., ‘‘Touch your nose”)
only if the experimenter says ‘‘Simon says” but to remain still otherwise. The task comprises 10 trials
in which the experimenter gives verbal instructions and also performs all the actions. The score
obtained in the 10 trials was considered (expected range = 0–10).
Preschool matching familiar figure task. The preschool matching familiar figure task (Traverso, Mantini,
Usai, & Viterbori, 2016; Usai et al., 2017) measures children’s ability to restrain impulsive responses
and to compare the target with all the pictures by shifting attention from the target to each alterna-
tive. The child is asked to perform 14 trials, selecting among five different alternatives the figure that is
identical to the target picture at the top of the page. The number of errors (expected range = 0–56) was
recorded. Cronbach’s alpha calculated in a sample of 174 children (Mage = 60.04 months) was .67
(Traverso et al., 2016).
Fluid intelligence
The Colored Progressive Matrices test (Raven, 1947) was used to measure fluid intelligence. The
child is required to find the missing piece of a colored pattern, choosing among six options. The test
comprises 36 items with increasing difficulty. The score was the total number of correct answers (ex-
pected range = 0–36).
Analytical plan
Descriptive statistics of all the measures and bivariate and partial correlations (controlling for fluid
intelligence and mother’s education) among all measures were performed. Subsequently, EF measures
were submitted to a principal component analysis and two EF components were identified. Although
exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis is generally used to overcome the impurity problem of EF
tasks, according to Willoughby and Blair (2016), an alternative approach to investigating the EF con-
struct is to consider the EF task performance as a formative indicator (rather than a reflective indica-
8
tor) of the EF construct. According to this view, to measure EF it could be useful to consider the total of
the variation across the indicators using, for example, principal component analysis (or composite
scores).
Then, to respond to the first research question (replicate the number knowledge model proposed
by Purpura et al., 2013), a mediation analysis was performed to verify that the two informal abilities
(set comparison and number sequence) accounted for formal math skills (seriation of Arabic numerals
and number comparison) through the mediation of the ability to understand that each numeral rep-
resents a specific quantity (set to numerals). Mediation analysis (Preacher & Hayes, 2004, 2008; Zhao,
Lynch, & Chen, 2010) was performed with structural equation modeling (using Mplus Version 7.4 soft-
ware; Muthén & Muthén, 1998), which allows testing mediation in a single analysis considering mul-
tiple independent and dependent variables (MacKinnon, 2008). In other words, multiple regression
analyses are simultaneously computed. The bootstrapping method was used (Zhao et al., 2010).
Finally, to investigate the second research question (examine the relation among WM, inhibition,
and number knowledge while controlling for the covariates), structural equation modeling with max-
imum likelihood estimation was used to verify the goodness of fit of a model in which the EF compo-
nents (principal component analysis scores) and covariates (mother’s education, fluid intelligence, and
age) were entered into the number knowledge model previously identified. Structural equation mod-
eling enables testing relationships among variables simultaneously; in this correlational analysis, fac-
tor loadings should be interpreted as beta weights, which provide information about how the changes
in the outcome variables occur parallel to changes in the predictors. The fit of each model to the data
was evaluated by examining multiple fit indices as reported in the Results section (Schermelleh-Engel,
Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003).
Results
Preliminary analyses
Descriptive statistics (i.e., means, standard deviations, observed score ranges, skewness, and kurto-
sis) for the number knowledge tasks (BIN tasks), EF tasks, and fluid intelligence task are reported in
Table 2. All the scores were normally distributed, and the percentages of missing values ranged from
0% to 6%.
Zero-order (Pearson) correlations and partial correlations (controlling for fluid intelligence and
mother’s education) among all measures were performed (Table 3). Regarding EF, bivariate associa-
tions ranged from .194 to .277 and a significant association emerged between the two inhibition tasks
Table 2
Descriptive statistics of the number knowledge measures, the EF task scores, and the fluid intelligence task scores.
N Range Min Max M SD Skewness Kurtosis

Number knowledge
Set comparison 140 0–10 7 10 9.48 0.73 1.363 1.437
Number sequence 143 0–20 5 20 16.27 4.44 0.783 0.708
Set to numerals 143 0–9 0 9 6.50 2.33 0.690 0.713
Seriation of Arabic numerals 143 0–5 0 5 3.84 1.81 1.115 0.491
Number comparison 143 0–11 3 11 9.03 2.13 0.796 0.515
Executive function
Keep track 139 0–9 0 9 4.18 2.14 0.181 0.840
Dual request selective task 140 0–10 0 10 4.06 2.65 0.134 1.011
Simon Says 143 0–10 4 10 6.62 2.06 0.560 1.263
PMFFT errors 139 0–56 2 30 12.99 5.82 0.335 0.150
Fluid intelligence
Colored Progressive Matrices 142 0–36 6 29 15.56 3.89 0.410 0.368
Note. EF, executive function; PMFFT, preschool matching familiar figure task. Set comparison is also called ‘‘Which is more
between these sets?”; Set to numerals is also called ‘‘Which is n?”; Number comparison is also called ‘‘Which is more between
these numerals?”
9
L. Traverso, I. Tonizzi, M. Carmen Usai et al.
Table 3
Zero-order (Pearson) correlations and partial correlations (low triangle), controlling for fluid intelligence (first column in low triangle) and for mother’s education (second gray column in low
triangle), among EF task, number knowledge task scores, age, mother’s education, and fluid intelligence scores.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Keep track 1 .265 .039 -.194 .338 .208 .302 .185 .430 .199 .231 .162
2 DRST .259 .266 1 .124 -.277 .169 .383 .349 .254 .326 .067 .234 .267
3 Simon -.045 -.027 .054 .037 1 -.267 .128 .198 .179 .237 .058 .043 .196 .220
4 PMFFT -.025 -.066 -.187 -.191 -.199 -.217 1 .192 .287 .216 .221 .124 -.045 .383 .237
5 Set comp. .285 .308 .178 .186 .066 .085 -.103 -.145 1 .100 .255 .107 .214 .030 .200 .111
6 N. sequence .104 .132 .330 .312 .093 .093 .-133 -.171 -.026 .008 1 .519 .293 .357 .267 .335 .343
10
7 Set to num .217 .250 .298 .298 .098 .117 -.033 -.093 .164 .204 .458 .482 1 .483 .447 .167 .334 .224
8 Seriation .079 .115 .215 .225 .182 .203 -.081 -.133 .012 .055 .250 .286 .399 .434 1 .346 .035 .295 .152

9 Num. comp. .384 .394 .269 .255 .001 -.005 .033 .013 .173 .186 .279 .275 .380 .386 .304 .317 1 .151 .224 .237
10 Age .195 .190 .112 .107 .058 .053 .076 .076 .024 .022 .257 .249 .227 .217 .034 .032 .117 .113 1 .034 .081
11 CPM - .196 - .156 - .186 - -.296 - .218 - .296 - .310 .253 - .163 - .011 1 .184
12 Moth. Ed. .100 - .238 - .193 - -.165 - .109 - .285 - .188 - .114 - .184 - .035 - - 1
Note. DRST, dual request selective task (working memory task score); PMFFT, preschool matching familiar figure task errors (inhibitory task score); CPM, Colored Progressive Matrices
(fluid intelligence score). Set comparison is also called ‘‘Which is more between these sets?”; Set to numerals is also called ‘‘Which is n?”; Number comparison is also called ‘‘Which is more
between these numerals?” Bolded coefficients are significant at p < .01; underlined coefficients are significant at p < .05.
and between the two WM tasks. The significant association coefficients among number knowledge
tasks ranged from .214 to .519. The two basic informal number skills (set comparison and number
sequence) were not significantly related to each other and were differentially related to the other
number knowledge scores. Set to numerals was related to all the other number knowledge scores,
and the two formal tasks were significantly related to each other even when partial correlations were
considered. Interclass and partial correlations among EF and number knowledge scores revealed
stronger association between WM and number knowledge measures than between inhibition and
number knowledge scores.
Subsequently, a principal component analysis was used to identify the EF components according to
the formative measurement approach (see Willoughby & Blair, 2016). Two factors with eigenvalues
above 1.00 were extracted, which accounted for 65% of the total variance. Factor loadings on the
rotated matrix are listed in Table 4. A loading above .40 was used as a criterion for interpreting the
factors (Tabachnick & Fidel, 1996). The keep track task and dual request selective task loaded highly
on Factor 1 (40%). The Simon Says task and preschool matching familiar figure task (errors) loaded on
Factor 2 (25%). We interpreted Factors 1 and 2 as representing WM and inhibition, respectively. The
principal component scores were used in the subsequent analysis.
Replication of the number knowledge model
We conducted a mediation analysis to test whether set to numerals mediated the relationship
between the two informal math skills (number sequence and set comparison) and the two formal
math skills (number comparison and seriation of Arabic numerals). Therefore, in the model we entered
set comparison (X1) and number sequence (X2) as independent variables, set to numeral as mediator
(M), and seriation of Arabic numerals (Y1) and number comparison (Y2) as dependent variables. Indi-
vidual path estimates of the mediation analysis are summarized in Table 5. The model was a saturated
one with perfect model fit.
As hypothesized, set comparison and number sequence were significantly associated with the
mediator set to numerals (b = .208, p = .001; b = .490, p < .001). In addition, set comparison was
not significantly associated with seriation of Arabic numeral (b = .082, p = .310) but was significantly
associated with number comparison (b = .181, p = .018). Number sequence was significantly associ-
ated with seriation of Arabic numeral (b = .297, p < .001) and number comparison (b = .323,
p < .001). Notably, according to a recent approach to mediation (i.e., the product of coefficients
approach), a statistically significant indirect effect is considered indispensable to establish mediation,
whereas a significant direct effect from X to Y is not a necessary condition to investigate the mediation
effect (Preacher & Hayes, 2004, 2008; Zhao et al., 2010). Moreover, set to numerals was significantly
related to both seriation of Arabic numerals (b = .458, p < .001) and number comparison (b = .324,
p = .001).
Finally, mediation effects of numeral knowledge on the relation between informal and formal
mathematical knowledge were examined. Bootstrapping with 10,000 samples was used to generate
95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs) of indirect effects of number sequence and set compar-
ison on number comparison and seriation of Arabic numerals mediated by set to numerals. All the
indirect effects did not pass through zero (0), indicating significant indirect effects (Table 6). Specifi-
Table 4
Results of principal component analysis on executive function task scores (rotated component matrix, varimax).
Rotated component matrix (varimax)

Working memory Inhibition
Simon Says .090 .881
PMFFT errors .402 .657
Keep track .812 .060
DRST .724 .217
Note. PMFFT, preschool matching familiar figure task (inhibitory task score); DRST, dual request selective task (working memory
task score).
11
Table 5
Results of a mediation analysis while controlling for age.
Set comparison (X1) – set to numerals (M) – seriation of Arabic numerals (Y1)
Label b [95% CI] b p
Set comparison ? Set to numerals a .660 [.256, 1.087] .208 .001
Set to numerals ? Seriation of Arabic numerals b .355 [.201, .520] .458 .000
Set comparison ? Seriation of Arabic numerals c .023 [ .355, .381] .009 .899
Number sequence (X2) – set to numerals (M) – seriation of Arabic numerals (Y1)
Number sequence ? Set to numerals a .258 [.186, .328] .490 .000
Set to numerals ? Seriation of Arabic numerals b .355 [.201, .520] .458 .000
Number sequence ? Seriation of Arabic numerals c .029 [ .049, .105] .072 .499
Set comparison (X1) – set to numerals (M) – number comparison (Y2)
Set comparison ? Set to numerals a .660 [.256, 1.087] .208 .001
Set to numerals ? Number comparison b .297 [.113, .477] .324 .001
Set comparison ? Number comparison c .337 [ .117, .827] .116 .148
Number sequence (X2) – set to numerals (M) – number comparison (Y2)
Number sequence ? Set to numerals a .258 [.186, .328] .490 .000
Set to numerals ? Number comparison b .297 [.113, .477] .324 .001
Number sequence ? Number comparison c .078 [.001, .163] .163 .059
Note. CI, confidence interval. Set comparison (‘‘Which is more between these sets?”) and number sequence are the predictors
(X1 and X2), set to numerals (‘‘Which is n?”) is the mediator (M), and seriation of Arabic numerals and number comparison
(‘‘Which is more between these numerals?”) are the dependent variables (Y1 and Y2).
cally, supportive to our mediation hypothesis, when set to numerals was entered into the model, three
full mediations and one partial mediation were observed (Fig. 2).
The direct effect of set comparison on seriation of Arabic numerals was nonsignificant (b = .023,
SE = .075, bootstrap 95% CI [ .359, .378]), whereas the effect of set to numerals on seriation of Arabic
Table 6
Total, direct, and indirect effects.
BCBCI
Effect Label b Lower Upper
from set comparison (X1) to seriation of Arabic numerals(Y1)
Total effect c+ab .211 .132 .658
Direct effect c .023 .355 .381
Indirect effect ab .234 .078 .466
from number sequence (X2) to seriation of Arabic numerals(Y1)
from set comparison (X1) to number comparison (Y2)
from number sequence (X2) to number comparison (Y2)
Note. BCBCI, bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval. Set comparison is also called ‘‘Which is more between these sets?”;
Set to numerals is also called ‘‘Which is n?”;, Number comparison is also called ‘‘Which is more between these numerals?”
12
Fig. 2. Number knowledge model. (Set comparison is also called ‘‘Which is more between these sets?”; Set to numerals is also
called ‘‘Which is n?”; Number comparison is also called ‘‘Which is more between these numerals?”). The values in parentheses
correspond to the standardized factor loadings between the independent and dependent variables when the mediator is not
included. A. numerals, Arabic numerals. *p < .05; **p < .01.
numerals was significant (b = .355, SE = .097, bootstrap 95% CI [.206, .525]) and also the indirect effect
from set comparison to seriation of Arabic numerals through set to numerals was significant
(a * b = .234, SE = .098, bootstrap 95% CI [.078, .466]).
The direct effect of number sequence on seriation of Arabic numerals turned nonsignificant
(b = .029, SE = .095, bootstrap 95% CI [ .051, .101]), whereas the effect of set to numerals on seriation
of Arabic numerals was significant (b = .355, SE = .097, bootstrap 95% CI [.206, .525]) and also the indi-
rect effect from number sequence to seriation of Arabic numerals through set to numerals was signif-
icant (a * b = .091, SE = .028, bootstrap 95% CI [.046, .155]).
The direct effect of set comparison on number comparison turned nonsignificant (b = .337,
SE = .081, bootstrap 95% CI [ .118, .837]), whereas the effect of set to numerals on number comparison
was significant (b = .297, SE = .101, bootstrap 95% CI [.123, .487]) and also the indirect effect from set
comparison to number comparison through set to numerals was significant (a * b = .196, SE = .095,
bootstrap 95% CI [.057, .432]).
The direct effect of number sequence on number comparison decreased but remained at the limit
of significance (b = .078, SE = .042, bootstrap 95% CI [.001, .163]), whereas the effect of set to numerals
on number comparison was significant (b = .297, SE = .101, bootstrap 95% CI [.123, .487]) and also the
indirect effect from number sequence to number comparison through set to numerals was significant
(a * b = .076, SE = .028, bootstrap 95% CI [.029, .137].
Crucially, this mediation model remained significant after controlling for age that was significantly
associated with number sequence. The model explained 31% of variance in the set to numerals task
performance, 22% in the number comparison task performance, and 24% in the seriation of Arabic
numerals task performance.
The relation between EF and number knowledge
After that, a general replication of the number knowledge model was conducted; EF (WM and inhi-
bition latent factor scores) and covariates (age, fluid intelligence, and mother’s education) were
entered into the model. In examining the model fit, we considered multiple fit indices. Nonsignificant
v2 values indicate a minor difference between the covariance matrix generated by the model and the
observed matrix and, thus, an acceptable fit. Comparative fit index (CFI) values greater than .97 sug-
gest a good fit, whereas values greater than .95 reflect an acceptable fit (Schermelleh-Engel et al.,
2003). Standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) values less than .05 are indices of good fit,
but values less than .10 are also acceptable (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). Root mean square
approximation of error (RMSEA) values less than or equal to .05 represent a good fit, values between
.05 and .08 represent an adequate fit, values from .08 to .10 represent a mediocre fit, and values
13
Fig. 3. Relationships among working memory (WM), inhibition, and number knowledge components while controlling for age,
fluid intelligence, and mother’s education included in the structural equation modeling. (Set comparison is also called ‘‘Which is
more between these sets?”; Set to numerals is also called ‘‘Which is n?”; Number comparison is also called ‘‘Which is more
between these numerals?”) No significant factor loadings are shown with dashed arrows. Significant factor loadings are shown
with continuous arrows on which standardized factor loadings are reported. Model fit indices were as follows: v2 = 7.204, df = 5,
p = .21, comparative fit index = .989, standardized root mean square residual = .032, root mean square error of
approximation = .059, and 95% confidence interval [.000, .147]. A. numerals, Arabic numerals. *p < .05; **p < .01.
greater than .10 are unacceptable (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). The final model showed good fit indices:
v2 = 7.204, df = 5, p = .21, CFI = .989, SRMR = .032, RMSEA = .059, and 90% CI [.000, .147].
The standardized solution is displayed in Fig. 3, and factor model parameter information is pro-
vided in Table 7. In this model, whereas WM was related to both informal basic skills (set comparison
and number sequence) and number comparison, inhibition was related only to seriation of Arabic
numerals. Regarding covariates, age and fluid intelligence were related to both WM and inhibition;
regarding number knowledge measures, all the covariates were related only to number sequence.
The model explained 37% of variance in the set to numerals task performance, 29% in the number com-
parison task performance, and 28% in the seriation of Arabic numerals task performance.
Discussion
The primary aim of this study was to examine the interrelationship among different number
knowledge components in a sample of children attending the last year of preschool. As underlined
by the major theories on mathematical learning, the acquisition of flexible mathematical thinking
depends on the ability to integrate different math concepts and skills (Baroody & Wilkins, 1999;
Okamoto & Case, 1996; Piaget, 1964). During the preschool years, children acquire different math
skills that are considered as the foundations of later mathematics achievement. However, most studies
have focused on the development of single skills such as counting, whereas a better understanding of
the relations between different early math skills is still needed. Specifically, we examined the relation-
ship between informal number knowledge, which is the ability to understand the meaning of quanti-
ties and number words, and formal number knowledge, which is the ability to operate with Arabic
numerals (Krajewski & Schneider, 2009). According to prior models of mathematics development
(Case et al., 1996; Gersten et al., 2005; Krajewski & Schneider, 2009), we found that the two basic
informal skills (the ability to verbally recite the number sequence and the ability to compare sets of
14
Table 7
Parameters of the path model.
Standardized SE Unstandardized SE Estimate/ p

estimate (b) estimate (b) SE
Set comparison ON WM .319 .086 .249 .071 3.508 .000
Inhibition .108 .091 .082 .070 1.175 .240
Age .032 .084 .007 .018 0.387 .699
Fluid intelligence .103 .089 .021 .018 1.151 .250
Mother’s education .005 .090 .001 .020 0.054 .957
Number sequence ON WM .210 .082 .962 .382 2.516 .012
Inhibition .131 .084 .583 .377 1.548 .122
Age .217 .075 .269 .094 2.849 .004
Set to numerals ON Set comparison .151 .077 .466 .241 1.938 .053
Number sequence .403 .080 .212 .045 4.731 .000
WM .137 .085 .329 .205 1.603 .109
Inhibition .039 .081 .090 .189 0.478 .633
Age .062 .074 .040 .049 0.833 .405
Seriation of Arabic Set to numerals .432 .081 .335 .067 5.001 .000
numerals ON WM .074 .085 .137 .159 0.865 .387
Inhibition .167 .082 .303 .150 2.109 .044
Age .078 .077 .039 .039 1.011 .312
Number comparison Number sequence .074 .096 .035 .046 0.767 .443
ON Set to numerals .270 .092 .245 .085 2.879 .004
WM .277 .085 .605 .190 3.185 .001
Inhibition .083 .085 .176 .180 0.979 .328
Age .003 .080 .002 .047 0.041 .967
WM ON Age .143 .085 .039 .023 1.678 .093
Inhibition ON Age .025 .085 .007 .024 0.291 .771
Number comparison Seriation of Arabic .177 .087 .491 .252 1.947 .052
WITH Numerals
Note. WM, working memory. ON means that a variable is predicted from one or more other observed variables; WITH indicates
a correlation between variables. Set comparison is also called ‘‘Which is more between these sets?”; Set to numerals is also
called ‘‘Which is n?”; Number comparison is also called ‘‘Which is more between these numerals?”
dots) were not correlated and seemed to be acquired independent of each other. More interesting, we
found that all the paths from informal math skills (number sequence and set comparison) to formal
math skills (comparing Arabic numerals and completing numerical seriation correctly) were mediated
by number knowledge (the ability to link numerals to quantities). This finding indicates that the tran-
sition from an informal numerical knowledge to a formal one is supported by the understanding that
each Arabic numeral stands for a specific quantity. These results successfully replicated the model
identified by Purpura et al. (2013). As suggested by Gersten et al. (2015), replication in developmental
research is a key element to building valid and accurate knowledge. Specifically, the importance of
replicating this number knowledge model lies in the need for providing empirical validations of pre-
vious theoretical frameworks according to which the acquisition of formal knowledge required the
integration of the symbolic system of Arabic numerals with the existing informal knowledge
15
(Gersten et al., 2005; Krajewski & Schneider, 2009; Okamoto & Case, 1996). It should be stressed that
although our measures and Purpura et al. (2013) measures were thought to assess similar skills, they
were not identical given that they were selected from two different batteries of numerical tasks. The
fact that the model was replicated across measures can be viewed as further confirmation of its good-
ness of fit together with the fact that the same results were replicated in different cultural contexts
(Italian vs. American context).
The second aim of our study was to extend the model proposed by Purpura et al. (2013), exploring
the association between EF and number knowledge. Specifically, our aim was to examine how two EF
components, inhibition and WM, were related to different number knowledge skills.
As previously mentioned, most studies have focused on the effect of a single or composite measure
of EF and assessed number knowledge as a comprehensive measure. Only few studies have considered
both EF and number knowledge as multicomponential constructs, and their results were not conclu-
sive (Table 1). In most studies, number knowledge measures were selected without a clear theoretical
model, and this makes it difficult to interpret and compare their results. To overcome this limitation,
our study focused on a precise developmental model of number knowledge. In addition, in contrast to
most previous studies, we considered EF component score rather that single EF task score (see
Willoughby & Blair, 2016). Specifically, our results strengthened the evidence already found in previ-
ous studies (Lee et al., 2013; Miller et al., 2012; Usai et al., 2014) that at 5 years of age WM and inhi-
bition are distinguishable, enabling assessing the contribution of each EF component while controlling
for the other one in the acquisition of number skills. Examining the effect of each EF while controlling
for the other one is of fundamental importance given that previous studies suggested that inhibition
contributed unique variance to math when it was studied as the sole predictor, whereas the strength
of this association decreased when WM was taken into account (Cragg et al., 2017; Lee & Bull, 2016).
In line with previous studies (Kroesbergen et al., 2009; Lan et al., 2011; Purpura et al., 2017), the
results confirmed the role of EF in predicting number knowledge skills in preschool. More important,
the structural equation model showed that WM and inhibition (component scores; see Willoughby &
Blair, 2016) were differentially related to specific number knowledge skills, with WM associated with
most components of number knowledge and inhibition related to seriation of Arabic numerals.
Specifically, WM had a significant role in both informal and formal knowledge. The involvement of
WM in number sequence suggests that at this age it does not represent a mere repetition of a list of
number words but rather seems to require the activation and updating of the relevant portion of the
sequence (Noël, 2009; Simanowski & Krajewski, 2019). In addition, WM was directly related to both
comparison tasks, supporting previous research that has demonstrated the significant role of WM in
numerical magnitude tasks (Geary, Hoard, Nugent, & Byrd-Craven, 2008; Kolkman, Hoijtink,
Kroesbergen, & Leseman, 2013; Purpura et al., 2017). Interestingly, the fact that WM was related to
both the informal and basic skill of comparing quantities and the formal ability of comparing Arabic
numerals suggested that the contribution of WM seems to be independent of the level of abstraction
of the stimuli used in the magnitude tasks (dots or Arabic numerals). In addition, it is worth noting
that in this study the relationship between WM and magnitude tasks was not explained by the use
of numerical information in WM tasks because our WM measures did not require the processing of
numerical information, as suggested by the authors of some other studies (Passolunghi & Siegel,
2001; Simanowski & Krajewski, 2019). The ability to link sets to numerals was not directly predicted
by any EF components but only by number sequence. Nevertheless, WM was indirectly related to the
ability to link sets to numerals by means of the mastery of the number sequence. As suggested by
Simanowski and Krajewski (2019), this could be explained by the fact that when children acquire flex-
ible use of the number sequence, they might not need to rely on WM to link sets to numerals.
In contrast to WM, inhibition predicted only one of the two formal math skills, namely the seriation
of Arabic numerals. Thus, compared with inhibition, WM played a more significant role in predicting
number knowledge, in line with the results also found in studies with school-aged children that have
highlighted the prominent role of WM in mathematical learning, finding a less consistent contribution
of inhibition (i.e., Cragg et al., 2017). More important, integrating inhibition and WM into Purpura
et al. (2013) three-step number knowledge model helped to understand that the different contribution
of the two EF components seemed not to vary according to the complexity level (informal, numeral, or
formal knowledge level) of the considered early math skills. This suggested that other factors could
16
explain the different roles of WM and inhibition in specific number skills. One possible explanation
may come from the model of the EF underpinnings evaluated by Cragg et al. (2017) in a study with
older children. In their multicomponential framework, the authors demonstrated that the contribu-
tion of each EF component varied according to the kind of knowledge required in the math tasks.
Specifically, inhibition was necessary in those math tasks that required suppressing prepotent but
improper procedural strategies in favor of more appropriate ones (procedural skill), whereas WM also
played an important part in retrieving knowledge from long-term memory (LTM) and in conceptual
understanding. This may explain why WM was associated with tasks that required the activation of
information retrieved from LTM (e.g., number sequence) and those that required a conceptual under-
standing of the magnitude relations between both quantities and Arabic numerals (e.g., set compar-
ison, number comparison). Instead, inhibition was related to the seriation of Arabic numerals, a
task in which children needed to put in order one to five digits printed on cards. In fact, in this task
children needed to restrain impulsive behavior to execute the correct strategy, whereas the retrieval
of information from LTM was not needed so much because digits were printed on cards presented in
front of children.
Regarding the minor role of inhibition compared with WM, one should also point out that our inhi-
bition tasks measured a specific type of behavioral inhibition, namely response inhibition. In fact,
although most studies on number knowledge have measured response inhibition, selected research
findings reveal that another distinguishable component of inhibition, namely interference control
(the ability to filter out irrelevant but conflicting information; Gandolfi, Viterbori, Traverso, & Usai,
2014; Traverso, Fontana, Usai, & Passolunghi, 2018) may be more related to mathematical learning
(Passolunghi & Siegel, 2001; Traverso et al., 2019), suggesting the need to also include this inhibitory
ability in future studies.
The use of structural equation modeling techniques enabled the evaluation of the relationship
between EF and number knowledge while accounting for two other influencing variables: general
intellectual functioning and mother’s education. As underlined by Jacob and Parkinson (2015), several
studies did not control for fluid intelligence or socioeconomic status (SES) even though these variables
are correlated with EF (de Abreu, Conway, & Gathercole, 2010; Hackman et al., 2015). Maternal edu-
cation, generally used as an indicator of SES, was associated with both WM and inhibition, suggesting
that social disparities influence both EF components, as found in a recent meta-analysis conducted by
Lawson, Hook, and Farah (2018). In addition, mother’s education had a direct effect on number
sequence but not on set comparison; this is in line with previous studies by Jordan and colleagues
(e.g., Jordan & Levine, 2009), who found significant SES differences in verbal number knowledge tasks
but not in those presented in a nonverbal form such as set comparison and nonverbal combinations.
Fluid intelligence was associated with both WM and inhibition, supporting the hypothesis that general
cognitive functioning is connected not only to the ability to activate task-relevant information but also
to the capacity to suppress irrelevant but automatized actions (Lee, Lo, Li, Sung, & Juan, 2015).
This study presents some limitations that should be noted. The first limitation is that data were not
collected longitudinally. This fact limits our findings in two ways. First, no causal relationship can be
supposed; second, we are not able to establish conclusions about age-related changes in the relation-
ship between EF components and number skills. A longitudinal investigation could be interesting
given the quantitative and qualitative development of EF during the preschool years. In addition, it
could be useful to analyze how domain-general and domain-specific precursors influence later math
performance in order to understand whether the relationship between EF components and specific
math skills undergoes meaningful changes with age. In this regard, the results from longitudinal stud-
ies suggest that poor WM has long-term effects on mathematical learning (Usai, Viterbori, & Traverso,
2018). Moreover, to develop a comprehensive model for number knowledge, the contribution of other
domain-general cognitive processes should be evaluated; for example, previous studies have sug-
gested that both linguistic ability (LeFevre et al., 2010) and visuospatial ability (Verdine et al.,
2014) play a key role in the acquisition of number knowledge skills. Finally, in future research it could
be useful to verify the pattern of associations observed using more EF tasks to better capture this con-
struct and number knowledge tasks that require operating with larger quantities and multidigit num-
bers. This may prevent the ceiling effect from influencing the results (in the current study, restricted
17
variance was registered in set comparison) and may allow verifying whether this model is predictive
even when higher quantities and numerals are considered (Yuan, Prather, Mix, & Smith, 2019).
Regarding the applicative consequences of our results, the central role of the ability to link set to
numerals in the number knowledge model evidenced the importance of providing children with infor-
mal and formal representations of early math concepts, encouraging them to make connections
between the two domains. In addition, practical implications for assessment and preschool education
also derived from the finding that inhibition and WM contribute differentially to number knowledge.
In fact, a multidimensional evaluation of children’s strengths and weaknesses in both number knowl-
edge and EF skills may contribute to identifying children at risk for difficulties in mathematical learn-
ing and to developing adequate teaching strategies. In addition, the inclusion of EF in everyday
curricula and not only in supplemental intervention may have positive effects in terms of transfer
to math skills. Given the key contribution of WM to various number skills, a successful strategy would
be to implement activities that reduce the cognitive load to facilitate the focus on number skills. For
example, in teaching a new number concept to children with poor WM, it might be useful to reduce
WM demands using visual supports and create appropriate settings that support children to pay
attention to relevant information.
In conclusion, our study contributes to the current literature by providing insights into the relation-
ship between EF components and number skills in preschoolers. A deeper understanding of this rela-
tionship may give rise to new early interventions that better take into account the role of WM and
inhibition in the acquisition of different number skills.
References
Arán Filippetti, V., & Richaud, M. C. (2017). A structural equation modeling of executive functions, IQ and mathematical skills in
primary students: Differential effects on number production, mental calculus and arithmetical problems. Child
Neuropsychology, 23, 864–888.
Aunio, P., Heiskari, P., Van Luit, J. EH., & Vuorio, J.-M. (2015). The development of early numeracy skills in kindergarten in low-,
average- and high-performance groups. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 13(1), 3–16.
Baroody, A. J., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (1999). The development of informal counting, number, and arithmetic skills and concepts. In J.
V. Copley (Ed.), Mathematics in the early years (pp. 48–65). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young
Children.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural
equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bull, R., Espy, K. A., Wiebe, S. A., Sheffield, T. D., & Nelson, J. M. (2011). Using confirmatory factor analysis to understand
executive control in preschool children: Sources of variation in emergent mathematic achievement: Executive control and
emergent mathematics. Developmental Science, 14(4), 679–692.
Carlson, S. M. (2005). Developmentally Sensitive Measures of Executive Function in Preschool Children. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 28(2), 595–616.
Carlson, S. M., & Moses, L. J. (2001). Individual differences in inhibitory control and children’s theory of mind. Child Development,
72(4), 1032–1053.
Case, R., Okamoto, Y., Griffin, S., McKeough, A., Bleiker, C., Henderson, B., ... Keating, D. P. (1996). The role of central conceptual
structures in the development of children’s thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61(1–2,
Serial No. 246).
Caviola, S., Mammarella, I. C., Cornoldi, C., & Lucangeli, D. (2012). The involvement of working memory in children’s exact and
approximate mental addition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 112(2), 141–160.
Clark, C. A. C., Sheffield, T. D., Wiebe, S. A., & Espy, K. A. (2013). Longitudinal associations between executive control and
developing mathematical competence in preschool boys and girls. Child Development, 84(2), 662–677.
Cragg, L., Keeble, S., Richardson, S., Roome, H. E., & Gilmore, C. (2017). Direct and indirect influences of executive functions on
mathematics achievement. Cognition, 162, 12–26.
de Abreu, P. M. J., Conway, A. R. A., & Gathercole, S. E. (2010). Working memory and fluid intelligence in young children.
Intelligence, 38(6), 552–561.
De Franchis, V., Usai, M. C., Viterbori, P., & Traverso, L. (2017). Preschool executive functioning and literacy achievement in
Grades 1 and 3 of primary school: A longitudinal study. Learning and Individual Differences, 54, 184–195.
De Smedt, B., Noël, M.-P., Gilmore, C., & Ansari, D. (2013). How do symbolic and non-symbolic numerical magnitude processing
skills relate to individual differences in children’s mathematical skills? A review of evidence from brain and behavior. Trends
in Neuroscience and Education, 2(2), 48–55.
Espy, K. A., McDiarmid, M. M., Cwik, M. F., Stalets, M. M., Hamby, A., & Senn, T. E. (2004). The contribution of executive functions
to emergent mathematic skills in preschool children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 26(1), 465–486.
Fuhs, M. W., Hornburg, C. B., & McNeil, N. M. (2016). Specific early number skills mediate the association between executive
functioning skills and mathematics achievement.. Developmental Psychology, 52(8), 1217–1235.
Gandolfi, E., Viterbori, P., Traverso, L., & Usai, M. C. (2014). Inhibitory processes in toddlers: A latent-variable approach. Frontiers
in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00381.
18
Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Nugent, L., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2008). Development of number line representations in children with
mathematical learning disability. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33(3), 277–299.
Gersten, R., Jordan, N. C., & Flojo, J. R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for students with mathematics difficulties.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(4), 293–304.
Gersten, R., Rolfhus, E., Clarke, B., Decker, L. E., Wilkins, C., & Dimino, J. (2015). Intervention for first graders with limited number
knowledge: Large-scale replication of a randomized controlled trial. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 516–546.
Gray, S. A., & Reeve, R. A. (2014). Preschoolers’ dot enumeration abilities are markers of their arithmetic competence. PLoS ONE, 9
(4), 1–11.
Hackman, D. A., Gallop, R., Evans, G. W., & Farah, M. J. (2015). Socioeconomic status and executive function: Developmental
trajectories and mediation. Developmental Science, 18(5), 686–702.
Hornung, C., Schiltz, C., Brunner, M., & Martin, R. (2014). Predicting first-grade mathematics achievement: The contributions of
domain-general cognitive abilities, nonverbal number sense, and early number competence. Frontiers in Psychology, 5.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00272.
Jacob, R., & Parkinson, J. (2015). The potential for school-based interventions that target executive function to improve academic
achievement: A review. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 512–552.
Jordan, N. C., & Levine, S. C. (2009). Socioeconomic variation, number competence, and mathematics learning difficulties in
young children. Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 15, 60–68.
Khng, K. H., & Lee, K. (2009). Inhibiting interference from prior knowledge: Arithmetic intrusions in algebra word problem
solving. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(2), 262–268.
Kolkman, M. E., Hoijtink, H. J. A., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Leseman, P. P. M. (2013). The role of executive functions in numerical
magnitude skills. Learning and Individual Differences, 24, 145–151.
Krajewski, K., & Schneider, W. (2009). Exploring the impact of phonological awareness, visual–spatial working memory, and
preschool quantity–number competencies on mathematics achievement in elementary school: Findings from a 3-year
longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103(4), 516–531.
Kroesbergen, E. H., Van Luit, J. E. H., Van Lieshout, E. C. D. M., Van Loosbroek, E., & Van de Rijt, B. A. M. (2009). Individual
differences in early numeracy: the role of executive functions and subitizing. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27(3),
226–236.
Lan, X., Legare, C. H., Ponitz, C. C., Li, S. u., & Morrison, F. J. (2011). Investigating the links between the subcomponents of
executive function and academic achievement: A cross-cultural analysis of Chinese and American preschoolers. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 108(3), 677–692.
Lanfranchi, S., & Vianello, R. (2008). A battery for assessing short-term and working memory in preschoolers: Preliminary
results. In N. B. Johansen (Ed.), New research on short-term memory (pp. 91–105). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
Lawson, G. M., Hook, C. J., & Farah, M. J. (2018). A meta-analysis of the relationship between socioeconomic status and executive
function performance among children. Developmental Science, 21(2), e12529.
Lee, H. W., Lo, Y. H., Li, K. H., Sung, W. S., & Juan, C. H. (2015). The relationship between the development of response inhibition
and intelligence in preschool children. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00802.
Lee, K., & Bull, R. (2016). Developmental changes in working memory, updating, and math achievement.. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 108(6), 869–882. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000090.
Lee, K., Bull, R., & Ho, R. M. H. (2013). Developmental changes in executive functioning. Child Development, 84(6), 1933–1953.
LeFevre, J.-A., Fast, L., Skwarchuk, S.-L., Smith-Chant, B. L., Bisanz, J., Kamawar, D., & Penner-Wilger, M. (2010). Pathways to
mathematics: Longitudinal predictors of performance: Pathways to mathematics. Child Development, 81(6), 1753–1767.
Lerner, M. D., & Lonigan, C. J. (2014). Executive function among preschool children: Unitary versus distinct abilities. Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 36(4), 626–639.
Lonigan, C. J., Lerner, M. D., Goodrich, J. M., Farrington, A. L., & Allan, D. M. (2016). Executive function of Spanish-speaking
language-minority preschoolers: Structure and relations with early literacy skills and behavioral outcomes. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 144, 46–65.
MacKinnon, D. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2014). Facts are more important than novelty: Replication in the education sciences. Educational
Researcher, 43(6), 304–316.
Mazzocco, M. M. M., & Kover, S. T. (2007). A longitudinal assessment of executive function skills and their association with math
performance. Child Neuropsychology, 13(1), 18–45.
Miller, M. R., Giesbrecht, G. F., Müller, U., McInerney, R. J., & Kerns, K. A. (2012). A latent variable approach to determining the
structure of executive function in preschool children. Journal of Cognition and Development, 13(3), 395–423.
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: Four general
conclusions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(1), 8–14.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive
functions and their contributions to complex ‘‘Frontal Lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1),
49–100.
Molin, A., Poli, S., & Lucangeli, D. (2007). BIN 4–6: Batteria per la valutazione dell’intelligenza numerica in bambini dai 4 ai 6 anni.
Trento, Italy: Edizioni Erickson.
Montoya, M. F., Susperreguy, M. I., Dinarte, L., Morrison, F. J., San Martín, E., Rojas-Barahona, C. A., & Förster, C. E. (2019).
Executive function in Chilean preschool children: Do short-term memory, working memory, and response inhibition
contribute differentially to early academic skills? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46, 187–200.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998). Mplus 3.0 [computer software]. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
Noël, M.-P. (2009). Counting on working memory when learning to count and to add: A preschool study.. Developmental
Psychology, 45(6), 1630–1643.
Okamoto, Y., & Case, R. (1996). Exploring the microstructure of children’s central conceptual structures in the domain of
number. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61(1–2), 27–58.
19
Pasolunghi, M. C., Cornoldi, C., & De Liberto, S. (1999). Working memory and intrusions of irrelevant information in a group of
specific poor problem solvers. Memory & Cognition, 27(5), 779–790.
Passolunghi, M. C., & Lanfranchi, S. (2012). Domain-specific and domain-general precursors of mathematical achievement: A
longitudinal study from kindergarten to first grade: Cognitive precursors of mathematical achievement. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82(1), 42–63.
Passolunghi, M. C., & Siegel, L. S. (2001). Short-term memory, working memory, and inhibitory control in children with
difficulties in arithmetic problem solving. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 80(1), 44–57.
Pellizzoni, S., Apuzzo, G. M., De Vita, C., Agostini, T., Ambrosini, M., & Passolunghi, M. C. (2020). Exploring EFs and math abilities
in highly deprived contexts. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00383.
Piaget, J. (1964). Cognitive development in children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 176–186.
Pietto, M. L., Giovannetti, F., Segretin, M. S., Belloli, L. M. L., Lopez-Rosenfeld, M., Goldin, A. P., ... Lipina, S. J. (2018). Enhancement
of inhibitory control in a sample of preschoolers from poor homes after cognitive training in a kindergarten setting:
Cognitive and ERP evidence. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 13, 34–42.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models.
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Assessing mediation in communication research. In A. F. Hayes, M. D. Slater, & L. B. Snyder
(Eds.), The Sage sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication research (pp. 13–54). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Purpura, D. J., Baroody, A. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2013). The transition from informal to formal mathematical knowledge: Mediation
by numeral knowledge.. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 453–464.
Purpura, D. J., & Napoli, A. R. (2015). Early numeracy and literacy: Untangling the relation between specific components.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 17(2-3), 197–218.
Purpura, D. J., Schmitt, S. A., & Ganley, C. M. (2017). Foundations of mathematics and literacy: The role of executive functioning
components. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 153, 15–34.
Raven, J. C. (1947). Progressive matrices: Set A, Ab, B, board and book form. London: H. K. Lewis.
Re, A. M., & Cornoldi, C. (2007). ADHD at five: A diagnosis-intervention program. Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities,
20, 223–240.
Re, A., De Franchis, V., & Cornoldi, C. (2010). Working memory control deficit in kindergarten ADHD Children. Child
Neuropsychology, 16(2), 134–144.
Resnick, L. B. (1989). Developing mathematical knowledge.. American Psychologist, 44(2), 162–169.
Ribner, A. D., Willoughby, M. T., Blair, C. B., & Family Life Project Key Investigators. (2017). Executive function buffers the
association between early math and later academic skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00869
Rousselle, L., & Noël, M.-P. (2007). Basic numerical skills in children with mathematics learning disabilities: A comparison of
symbolic vs non-symbolic number magnitude processing. Cognition, 102(3), 361–395.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of
significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8, 23–74.
Simanowski, S., & Krajewski, K. (2019). Specific preschool executive functions predict unique aspects of mathematics
development: A 3-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 90(2), 544–561.
Strommen, E. A. (1973). Verbal self-regulation in a children’s game: Impulsive errors on ‘‘Simon Says”. Child Development, 44(4),
849.
Susperreguy, M. I., & Davis-Kean, P. E. (2016). Maternal math talk in the home and math skills in preschool children. Early
Education and Development, 27(6), 841–857.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidel, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York: HarperCollins.
Traverso, L., Fontana, M., Usai, M. C., & Passolunghi, M. C. (2018). Response inhibition and interference suppression in
individuals with Down syndrome compared to typically developing children. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00660.
Traverso, L., Mantini, C., Usai, M. C., & Viterbori, P. (2016). Valutare le capacità di regolazione in età prescolare: Il Preschool
Matching Familiar Figure Task. Psicologia Clinica dello Sviluppo, 20, 189–210.
Traverso, L., Viterbori, P., & Usai, M. C. (2019). Effectiveness of an executive function training in Italian preschool educational
services and far transfer effects to pre-academic skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02053.
Usai, M. C., Viterbori, P., Gandolfi, E., & Traverso, L. (2017). FE-PS 2–6: Batteria per la valutazione delle funzioni esecutive in età
prescolare. Trento, Italy: Edizioni Centro Studi Erickson.
Usai, M. C., Viterbori, P., & Traverso, L. (2018). Preschool executive function profiles: implications for math achievement in
grades 1 and 3. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 32(4), 404–418.
Usai, M. C., Viterbori, P., Traverso, L., & De Franchis, V. (2014). Latent structure of executive function in five- and six-year-old
children: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11(4), 447–462.
van der Sluis, S., de Jong, P. F., & van der Leij, A. (2007). Executive functioning in children, and its relations with reasoning,
reading, and arithmetic. Intelligence, 35(5), 427–449.
Van der Ven, S. H. G., Kroesbergen, E. H., Boom, J., & Leseman, P. P. M. (2012). The development of executive functions and early
mathematics: A dynamic relationship: Development executive functions mathematics. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82(1), 100–119.
Verdine, B. N., Irwin, C. M., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2014). Contributions of executive function and spatial skills to
preschool mathematics achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 126, 37–51.
Viterbori, P., Traverso, L., & Usai, M. C. (2017). The role of executive function in arithmetic problem-solving processes: A study of
third graders. Journal of Cognition and Development, 18(5), 595–616.
Viterbori, P., Usai, M. C., Traverso, L., & De Franchis, V. (2015). How preschool executive functioning predicts several aspects of
math achievement in Grades 1 and 3: A longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 140, 38–55.
Wiebe, S. A., Sheffield, T., Nelson, J. M., Clark, C. A. C., Chevalier, N., & Espy, K. A. (2011). The structure of executive function in 3-
year-olds. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108(3), 436–452.
20
Willoughby, M. T., & Blair, C. B. (2016). Measuring executive function in early childhood: A case for formative measurement.
Psychological Assessment, 28(3), 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000152.
Yuan, L., Prather, R. W., Mix, K. S., & Smith, L. B. (2019). Preschoolers and multi-digit numbers: A path to mathematics through
the symbols themselves. Cognition, 189, 89–104.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal
of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.
21

The Relationship of Working Memory and Inhibition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Relationship of Working Memory and Inhibition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Relationship of Working Memory and Inhibition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 203 (2021) 105014

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Experimental Child

The relationship of working memory and

According to recent developmental theories, the acquisition of mathematical abilities depends on

Preschool number knowledge

L. Traverso, I. Tonizzi, M. Carmen Usai et al.

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 203 (2021) 105014

EF and number knowledge

The current study

N Range Min Max M SD Skewness Kurtosis

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 203 (2021) 105014

Replication of the number knowledge model

Rotated component matrix (varimax)

The relation between EF and number knowledge

Standardized SE Unstandardized SE Estimate/ p

You might also like