Research Byte: Lets hear it (again) for #visual-spatial (#Gv) #workingmemory (#Gwm) and math #reasoning (#Gf-RQ) — #CHC #SPED #EDPSY #schoolpsychology #schoolpsychologist #WJV

From Spatial Construction to Mathematics: Exploring the Mediating Role of Visuospatial Working Memory.  Developmental Psychology.  An open access article that can be downloaded—Click here.

Yuxin Zhang, Rebecca Bull, and Emma C. Burns.

Abstract

This study examined the longitudinal pathways from early spatial skills at 5 and 7 years to their mathematics reasoning abilities at 17 years in a large cohort sample (N = 16,338) from the Millennium Cohort Study. Children were assessed at four time points: Sweep 3 (Mage = 5.29), Sweep 4 (Mage = 7.23), Sweep 5 (Mage = 11.17), and Sweep 7 (Mage = 17.18), with measures including spatial construction skills, visuospatial working memory, mathematics achievement, and mathematics reasoning skills. Path analyses revealed that spatial construction at age 5 directly predicted mathematics achievement at age 7 after accounting for sex, age, socioeconomic status, vocabulary, and nonverbal reasoning ability. Furthermore, spatial construction at 5 and 7 years was directly associated with mathematics reasoning skills at 17, and spatial working memory at age 11 partially mediated this relationship. Notably, the direct effects of spatial construction on mathematics reasoning at age 17 remained significant and robust after accounting for the mediator and covariates. These findings highlight the potential value of early spatial construction skills as predictors of subsequent mathematical development over the long term.

Public Significance Statement.Children with stronger spatial skills at age 5 are more likely to achieve higher scores in mathematics at ages 7 and 17. Visuospatial working memory partly explained this link, and early spatial skills showed a direct and robust association with later mathematics. This study identified early spatial skills as an important long-term predictor of mathematics from preschool through adolescence. The findings highlight the potential of infusing spatial thinking and using spatial strategies to better understand and solve mathematics problems.

Click on image for easier viewing

Comment:  I recently made a post regarding research that demonstrated the importance of visual-spatial working memory abilities for spatial navigation where I also mentioned the new (not yet online as far as I know) WJ V Visual Working Memory test, which was decades in development—an interesting test development “back story”.  

Research Byte: Individual differences in #spatial navigation and #workingmemory - lets hear it for the new #WJV visual working memory test—#CHC #Gv #Gwm #schoolpsychology #cognition #intelligence

Individual differences in spatial navigation and working memory

Intelligence. Sorry, but not an open access downloadable article 😕

Abstract

Spatial navigation is a complex skill that relies on many aspects of cognition. Our study aims to clarify the role of working memory in spatial navigation, and particularly, the potentially separate contributions of verbal and visuospatial working memory. We leverage individual differences to understand how working memory differs among types of navigators and the predictive utility of verbal and visuospatial working memory. Data were analyzed from N = 253 healthy, young adults. Participants completed multiple measures of verbal and visuospatial working memory and a spatial navigation task called Virtual Silcton. We found that better navigators may rely more on visuospatial working memory. Additionally, using a relative weights analysis, we found that visuospatial working memory accounts for a large majority of variance in spatial navigation when compared to verbal working memory. Our results suggest individual differences in working memory are domain-specific in this context of spatial navigation, with visuospatial working memory being the primary contributor.

————————

As an FYI.  The WJ V has a new cognitive Visual Working Memory test that I created. Unfortunately, it was not included in the original WJ V launch and will be added in a later release…not sure when…no one has told me…but I think this fall.

The back story is that this test was in development for over 30 years by yours truly.  For the WJ III I developed, and we normed, a visual working memory test where examinee’s were shown a abstract line-based image on a dotted grid and were instructed to rotate the image in their mind (after the test stimuli figure was removed) and then draw the rotated image on a identical blank grid.  The idea of examinees drawing their response was to add additional clinical information about visual-motor abilities, in addition to visual working memory.  Unfortunately, after being completely normed, we learned via inter-rater reliability studies that the scoring reliability was not adequate…darn.  

The second attempt was an earlier version of the current WJ V Visual Working Memory test that had already been printed for the WJ IV norming test books.  The WJ IV version was shelved at the last minute due to cost issues as a result of the financial crises at the end of the Bush presidency.  We were instructed to reduce the cost of the WJ IV norming.  This test simply had too many printed test easel pages (was called a “page eater”) and was eliminated…double darn.  

However, this turned out to be a blessing in disguise.  With the new digital testing platform, the WJ IV version was now presented without a concern for the number of pages, and more importantly, it could have a much more complex and informative underlying scoring system since all taps on an asymetrical response grid were recorded (which was a richer set of response data than the original WJ IV version).  As stated in the WJ V technical manual (LaForte, Dailey & McGrew, 2025, p. 40):

The Visual Working Memory test requires the use of visual working memory “in the context of processing” (Maehara & Saito, 2007). For each item, the examinee briefly studies a pattern of stimulus dots inside of randomly placed squares on the screen and then must recall the specific locations of the dots. The presentation and recall screens are separated by a quick and simple visual discrimination distractor item. This test requires the examinee to maintain information in working memory while actively processing the distractor requirements. Once the distractor task is completed, it must be quickly removed from active memory to focus on recalling the locations of the stimulus dots (Burgoyne et al., 2022). Errors of both omission (i.e., erroneously recalling a dot in a box where no dot was present) and commission (i.e., failing to identify a box associated with a dot's correct location) are both factored into the test's scoring model; however, heavier emphasis is placed on visual recall through a relatively higher penalty for errors of commission.

Validity information in the WJ V TM provides evidence that the new Visual Working Memory test is a mixed measure of Gv and Gwm.  Preliminary evidence (inspection of growth curves and standard deviation distributional characteristics) was interpreted as being consistent with other measures of executive functioning.  Additional concurrent validity studies with established measures of executive functioning are needed before an evidence-based claim of executive functioning score variance can clearly be established.

I think the 30+ year wait was worth it.  I’m very proud of this test in its current form.  A “shout out” to Dr. Erica LaForte and David Dailey for creating such a response-rich stream of data for scoring…something that was not possible in the planned non-digital WJ III and WJ IV versions.

Research Byte: Differences in mathematical reasoning between typically achieving and gifted children

Differences in mathematical reasoning between typically achieving and gifted children
Derek H. Berg & Pamela A. McDonald (article link)

ABSTRACT

Mathematical giftedness refers to mastery in a specific mathematical domain at an earlier than expected age. The present study examined which cognitive processes accounted for differences in mathematical reasoning between gifted children (MRG) and their typically achieving peers (TA). Naming speed, phonological awareness, short-term memory, executive functioning, and working memory were examined in 51 children aged approximately 7 years. A series of stepwise regression models, using a contrast variable to capture differences in mathematical reasoning between MRG and TA children, were created to examine which cognitive domains accounted for differences in mathematical reasoning. Short-term memory (r2 = .08) and visual-spatial working memory (r2 = .39) emerged as the only cognitive predictors within a model that included gender, age, and fluid intelligence. This model captured all of the variance distinguishing mathematics reasoning between MRG and TA children, explaining an overall contribution of 70% of the variance in mathematical reasoning.

KEYWORDS: Giftedness, mathematical reasoning, working memory, child development


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Research Byte: Visual-spatial working memory important for math achievement

Click on image to enlarge.

David Geary does some of the best math learning research availble. Good stuff.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Research bytes: Spatial and verbal working memory are different constructs

Hale, S., Rose, N. S., Myerson, J., Strube, M. J., Sommers, M., TyeMurray, N., & Spehar, B. (2011). The Structure of Working Memory Abilities Across the Adult Life Span. Psychology and Aging, 26(1), 92-110.

(italics emphasis added by blogmaster)

The present study addresses three questions regarding age differences in working memory: (1) whether performance on complex span tasks decreases as a function of age at a faster rate than performance on simple span tasks; (2) whether spatial working memory decreases at a faster rate than verbal working memory; and (3) whether the structure of working memory abilities is different for different age groups. Adults, ages 20–89 (n = 388), performed three simple and three complex verbal span tasks and three simple and three complex spatial memory tasks. Performance on the spatial tasks decreased at faster rates as a function of age than performance on the verbal tasks, but within each domain, performance on complex and simple span tasks decreased at the same rates. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that domain-differentiated models yielded better fits than models involving domain-general constructs, providing further evidence of the need to distinguish verbal and spatial working memory abilities. Regardless of which domain-differentiated model was examined, and despite the faster rates of decrease in the spatial domain, age group comparisons revealed that the factor structure of working memory abilities was highly similar in younger and older adults and showed no evidence of age-related dedifferentiation.


- iPost using BlogPress from my Kevin McGrew's iPad