Durham Research Online

Deposited in DRO:
07 August 2019

Version of attached le:

Accepted Version

Peer-review status of attached le:

Peer-reviewed

Citation for published item:

Allen, K. and Giofre, D. and Higgins, S. and Adams, J. (2020) 'Working memory predictors of written
mathematics in 7-8 year old children.', Quarterly journal of experimental psychology., 73 (2). pp. 239-248.

Further information on publisher's website:

[Link]

Publisher's copyright statement:

Allen, K., Giofre, D., Higgins, S. Adams, J. (2020). Working Memory Predictors of Written Mathematics in 7-8 Year
Old Children. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 73(2): 239-248.. Copyright c 2019 Experimental
Psychology Society. DOI: 10.1177/1747021819871243

Use policy
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for
personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:
• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source
• a link is made to the metadata record in DRO
• the full-text is not changed in any way
The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom
Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971
[Link]
WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 1

Working Memory Predictors of Written Mathematics in 7-8 Year Old Children

to appear in:

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Accepted Friday, 26 July 2019

Please check the published version before citing.

Author(s): Katie Allen1, David Giofrè2, Steve Higgins3, John Adams4

1
School of Education, University of Durham, UK, ORCiD no.: 0000-0003-1145-8642
2
Department of Educational Sciences, University of Genoa, Italy. Part of the work was
conducted when the author worked at the school of Natural Sciences and Psychology,
Liverpool John Moores University, UK, ORCiD no.: 0000-0003-2551-3059
3
School of Education, University of Durham, UK, ORCiD no.: 0000-0003-0314-4846
4
Department of Psychology, University of Durham, UK, ORCiD no.: 0000-0002-2727-615X

Corresponding author: Katie Allen, [Link]@[Link], 07989513109

Abstract: There is extensive evidence for the involvement of working memory in mathematical
attainment This study aims to identify the relative contributions of verbal, spatial-simultaneous,
and spatial-sequential working memory measures in written mathematics. Year 3 children (7-
8 years of age, n=214) in the UK were administered a battery of working memory tasks
alongside a standardised test of mathematics. Confirmatory factor analyses and variance
partitioning were then performed on the data to identify the unique variance accounted for by
verbal, spatial-simultaneous, and spatial-sequential measures. Results revealed the largest
individual contribution was that of verbal working memory, followed by spatial-simultaneous
factors. This suggests the components of working memory underpinning mathematical
performance at this age are those concerning verbal-numeric and spatial-simultaneous WM.
Implications for educators and further research are discussed.

Keywords: verbal, visuospatial, working memory, mathematics, children

Acknowledgements: This research was funded via a PhD studentship from the North East and
Northern Ireland Doctoral Training Partnership, which is in turn funded through the Economic
and Social Research Council. This work was adapted from an earlier conference paper.
WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 2

Compliance with ethical standards: This research is funded by the Economic and Social
Research Council. There are no known conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, and all data
gathered from human participants was done so following obtaining informed consent.
WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 3

Abstract

There is extensive evidence for the involvement of working memory in mathematical

attainment This study aims to identify the relative contributions of verbal, spatial-simultaneous,

and spatial-sequential working memory measures in written mathematics. Year 3 children (7-

8 years of age, n=214) in the UK were administered a battery of working memory tasks

alongside a standardised test of mathematics. Confirmatory factor analyses and variance

partitioning were then performed on the data to identify the unique variance accounted for by

verbal, spatial-simultaneous, and spatial-sequential measures. Results revealed the largest

individual contribution was that of verbal working memory, followed by spatial-simultaneous

factors. This suggests the components of working memory underpinning mathematical

performance at this age are those concerning verbal-numeric and spatial-simultaneous WM.

Implications for educators and further research are discussed.

Keywords: verbal, visuospatial, mathematics, children

WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 4

Introduction

There is some discrepancy in the literature with regard to the proportional influence of

components of the Baddeley and Hitch working memory model (1974) on mathematics

achievement. Whilst there are suggestions of a stronger influence of visuospatial working

memory (e.g., Caviola, Mammarella, Lucangeli & Cornoldi, 2014; Clearman, Klinger &

Szucs, 2017; Holmes, Adams & Hamilton, 2008; Li & Geary, 2017), there is also evidence of

developmental shifts in the respective contributions and the potential for a cyclical

relationship (e.g., Li & Geary, 2013; Soltanlou, Pixner & Nuerk, 2015; Van de Weijer-

Bergsma, Kroesbergen & Van Luit, 2015). Additionally, there is some evidence for a greater

influence of verbal working memory (e.g., Wilson & Swanson, 2001) on mathematics.

Visuospatial working memory is implicated in mathematics performance in a number of

areas, including, but not limited to arithmetic (Ashkenazi et al., 2013; Caviola, Mammarella,

Cornoldi & Lucangeli; Passolunghi & Cornoldi, 2008;, 2012), word problem solving

(Swanson & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2004; Swanson & Sachse-Lee, 2001; Zheng, Swanson &

Marcoulides, 2011), and geometry (Giofrè, Mammarella & Cornoldi, 2014; Giofrè,

Mammerella, Ronconi & Cornoldi, 2013), as well as mathematical difficulties (Andersson &

Lyxell, 2007; D’Amico & Guarnera, 2005; McLean & Hitch, 1999; Passolunghi & Cornoldi,

2008; Szucs, Devine, Soltesz, Nobes & Gabriel, 2013). It is, therefore, important to

understand the intricacies of this relationship in order to mediate difficulties associated with

mathematics to the fullest extent possible.

Some authors argued that the visuospatial working memory system is not unitary

(e.g., Logie, 1995). An alternative approach that has recently received some support is one

that distinguishes between spatial-sequential tasks requiring the recall of a sequence of spatial

locations, and spatial-simultaneous tasks demanding the recall of an array of simultaneously-

WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 5

presented locations (see Cornoldi & Vecchi, 2003; Mammarella, Borella, Pastore, &

Pazzaglia, 2013, Mammarella, Caviola, Giofrè, & Szucs, 2018).

Mammarella et al. (2006, 2018) identified a double dissociation between spatial-

simultaneous and spatial-sequential working memory, which has been further investigated for

its relationship with mathematics, thus providing reason for differentiating between spatial-

simultaneous and spatial-sequential formats of VSWM tasks. Since spatial-simultaneous and

spatial-sequential VSWM can be uniquely affected in visuospatial learning difficulties, it is

logical that these two components may demonstrate differential relations with mathematics

attainment in young children.

Various measures are available for assessing mathematical performance, ranging from

single-step calculations to multi-step contextual story problems. A number of these measures

have been standardised for their use with children within a particular age range (e.g.,

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Pearson Clinical, 2017), however, a large number of

the measures used are measures derived by researchers for the purpose of research. Measures

designed for research purposes should be considered carefully when applying the findings to

any context other than that it was originally designed for since direct comparisons are not

possible from unstandardised data. Furthermore, such measures can lead to concerns

regarding reliability and validity since the number of applications of the measures is

generally fewer than that of standardised measures. To combat these issues, a standardised

written mathematics measure was used in this study to ascertain how children performed

compared to age norms. The measure is designed to map on to current England and Wales

SATs papers and so is directly related school attainment data.

The principal aim of this study is to examine the relationship between different

working memory components and mathematics attainment. Here we aimed to further this

knowledge by identifying the unique contributions of verbal, spatial-simultaneous, and

WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 6

spatial-sequential factors to written mathematics in Year 3 children (7-8 years of age). In

doing so, this knowledge will allow us to understand more deeply the predictive nature of this

relationship and understand where best to target preventative measures for mathematics

difficulties, for example by identifying the age group most likely to benefit from an

intervention. This age group was chosen based on previous evidence highlighting a stronger

influence of visuospatial working memory on mathematics attainment in this age group

(Holmes & Adams, 2006, Holmes, Adams & Hamilton, 2008). The age group chosen also

aligns with a period of intensive skill acquisition; a time when visuospatial working memory

is most likely employed (Andersson, 2008).

Spatial-sequential tasks requiring order during the recall phase, as well as those that

do not require order during recall, were used in order to ensure the model was fully crossed.

The main research question being asked was “how do the subcomponents of working

memory relate to of the performance of written mathematics?”. Previous meta-analytic

findings indicate different subcomponents of working memory do not tend to make different

contributions to mathematical performance (Peng, Namkung, Barnes, & Sun, 2016). Such a

finding, however, might be determined by a heterogeneous number of measures in use in

different studies and by the fact that the aforementioned meta-analysis did not distinguish

between simultaneous and sequential subcomponents of WM. In addressing this issue, a

recent systematic review by Allen, Higgins and Adams (2019) identified no influence of

spatial-sequential versus spatial-simultaneous working memory on mathematical

performance. Similarly to Peng, Namkung, Barnes and Sun (2016), this review compared

studies with a wide range of measures both for mathematics and working memory. Further,

verbal components of working memory were not considered, which may have influenced the

results. This work will expand on the understanding of previous papers by including the
WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 7

unique contributions of spatial-simultaneous and spatial-sequential measures to children’s

mathematics.

Method

Participants

The sample initially include of 214 7-8 year children. Some children were absent

during the second administration and were excluded from the final sample. The final sample

included a total of 197 children (95 male and 102 female, M age = 95.99 months, SD = 3.63).

An opportunity sample of Year 3 pupils in each of the five schools was used, using opt-out

parental consent to reduce bias in the sample (Krousel-Wood et al., 2006). The study was

approved by the School of Education Ethics Committee at the University of Durham. Parental

consent was obtained. Children with special educational needs, intellectual disabilities, or

neurological and genetic conditions were not included in the study.

Design & Procedure

All children were tested individually in a quiet area of their school. The six working

memory measures were administered in a randomised order so as to reduce the influence of

rehearsal or fatigue (ɑ = .80). However, the size of the grids used in the derived measures of

visuospatial working memory were administered in a fixed order (3 × 3 then 4 × 3, and 4 × 3

then 4 × 4, for spatial-sequential and spatial-simultaneous, respectively). A correlational

design was adopted to explore the relationships between visuospatial working memory and

maths performance. Measures were administered as per the administration instructions

provided with the WMTB-C where standardised measures were used. Where measures were

derived for the purposes of the study, administration procedures paralleled those set out for

standardised measures. The mathematics test was presented in paper format. Children could
WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 8

ask for a question to be read aloud in order to not place children of lower reading ability at a

disadvantage.

Measures

Verbal WM

Working Memory Test Battery for Children (WMBT-C): Three subtests of the

WMTB-C were administered to children: digit recall (children recall a list of digits presented

to them verbally), backwards digit recall (children recall a list of digits presented to the

verbally in reverse order), and counting recall (children count aloud the number of dots on a

page then recall the list of totals, in the correct order, once all pages in the sequence have

been counted). All subtests were administered in accordance with the instructions set out for

the WMTB-C, hence sequences were presented at a rate of one item per second. Blocks of six

trials of each sequence length were employed, however, following four correct trials, testing

moved on to the next block. Testing was discontinued following three mistakes within one

block, however, if this was the first block of trials, the previous block was administered to

ascertain the child’s span score. The child’s raw score was recorded for each subtest.

Visuospatial WM

Spatial-simultaneous: A grid was presented to the child (firstly a 4 × 3 grid was used,

followed by a 4 × 4 grid; all children completed both grid sizes) containing dots. The dots

were displayed for 3s before disappearing to leave a blank grid. Immediately following the

disappearance of the dots, children were asked to tap on the screen of the laptop being used to

indicate where the dots had been. They were instructed that this could be done in any order or

pattern. The number of dots per grid ranged from two to eight dots, with block of six trials of

each number of dots. This reflects the procedure of the WMTB-C. Additionally, the same
WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 9

discontinuation rule was applied. Unlike the subtests of the WMTB-C, a moving-on rule was

not employed in this test.

Spacial-sequential, no order: The same format of test was used as that for spatial-

simultaneous working memory. However, dots were presented one at a time for a period of 1s

each on grid sizes 3 × 3 then 4 × 3. All children completed both grid sizes. Again, blocks

consisted of six trials, and contained between two and eight dots. Recall in this test was also

immediate, with the children being required to tap the screen where the dots had appeared

previously. Importantly, children were instructed that they could indicate the location of the

dots in any order they wished. This test was designed to determine the role of order during

the recall phase in the number of dot positions correctly recalled.

Block recall (Corsi, 1972): The block recall task from the WMTB-C was used to

assess spatial-sequential working memory with order. A sequence of blocks are tapped at a

rate of one block per second which children must recall in the correct order. Only forwards

order recall was required. This test was administered in accordance with the instructions set

out by the WMBT-C, as with those used for verbal WM, hence administration and scoring

were as described above.

Mathematics

Access Mathematics Test (AMT): The AMT is a standardised measure of

mathematics, available for use with children between the ages of 6 and 12 years. As such it

provides a comprehensive profile of how children perform when faced with different aspects

of maths. The AMT is aligned to the areas of maths taught on the England and Wales national

curriculum, with requirements for children to develop an understanding in the areas of

number, measurement, geometry, and statistics, hence providing a valid measure. Questions

include those concerning using and applying mathematics (e.g. “tick the two division facts

that give the same answer”), counting and understanding number (e.g. “one part of the circle
WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 10

is shaded. How many more parts do you need to shade so exactly one half of the circle is

shaded?”), knowing and using number facts (e.g., “what is half of 24?”), calculating (e.g.

“complete this calculation and show the remainder: 721 ÷ 2 = __ remainder __”),

understanding shape (e.g. “shade in the squares to show the reflection of the shape”),

measuring (e.g. “what time does this clock show, in digital form?”), and handling data (e.g.

“the table gives the ages of the members of a golf club. How many members are 55 or

older?”).

Children were read the instructions set out for the AMT, which included a time limit

of 45 minutes, clarification of where to write their answer on the paper, and explanation that

workings were allowed on the paper, providing their answer was clearly written in the correct

space. Typical classroom test conditions were adopted throughout. Children were permitted

to request questions be read aloud to them should they have difficulties so as not to

disadvantage those with weaker reading abilities, however, no further explanation of the

question, or what was required, was given. No discontinuation rule was employed as children

were instructed to complete as many questions as they could, but that questions were also

included for children much older than they were so not to worry if they could not complete

them all. The total number of test items for this test is 60, with a maximum score of 60.

Data analysis

The R program (R Core Team, 2018) with the “lavaan” library (Rosseel, 2012) was

used. Model fit was assessed using various indexes according to the criteria suggested by Hu

and Bentler (1999). We considered the chi-square (χ2), the comparative fit index (CFI), the

non-normed fit index (NNFI), the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and the

root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).

Results
WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 11

Preliminary analyses

Age (in months) was partialled out of all analyses to remove its influence on the data

(see Giofrè, Mammarella, & Cornoldi, 2013 for a similar procedure). Descriptive statistics

and correlations are presented in Table 1. There is little variation evident between the raw and

covaried correlations, with r values of a similar order in both bases, e.g. r = .398 and r = .399

for the raw and covaried correlations between spatial-simultaneous 4 × 4 and knowing and

using number facts, respectively. Asymmetry and kurtosis were tested on all variables.

“Measuring”, a single component of mathematics, was skewed and presented with extremely

high values of kurtosis, therefore, this component was removed from further analysis. All

other measures had skewness and kurtosis values lower than 1. All the analyses were

performed again including measuring and results were extremely similar.

Table 1 about here

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To confirm the reliability of the structure of the variables, a CFA was conducted. We

hypothesized the existence of three separate WM factors, spatial-simultaneous, spatial-

sequential and verbal, and one mathematics factor. The fit of the model was acceptable,

χ2(71) = 94.23, p = .03, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = .05, CFI = .97, NNFI = .97, and so this model

was adopted for the remainder of the analysis (Table 2 and Figure 1). The CFA showed that

mathematics is highly correlated with both spatial-simultaneous and verbal WM, while the

correlation with spatial-sequential WM was moderate. Reliabilities were also calculated from

the CFA model using omega, as this is shown to be a more robust measure of reliability at

this level (Deng & Chan, 2016; Peters, 2014; Zinbarg, Revelle, Yovel & Li, 2005; verbal: ω

= .60, spatial-simultaneous: ω = .81, spatial-sequential: ω = .70)

Table 2 and Figure 1 about here

WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 12

Variance partitioning

In the final set of analyses, we used variance partitioning to examine the unique and

shared portion of the variance of mathematics explained by the spatial-simultaneous, spatial-

sequential and verbal factors. A series of regression analyses were conducted to understand

the unique and specific contribution of spatial-simultaneous, spatial-sequential, and verbal

WM (see Chuah & Maybery, 1999; Giofrè, Donolato & Mammarella, 2018, for a similar

procedure). As shown in Figure 2, only verbal (10.8%) and spatial-simultaneous (3.4%)

factors were explaining a unique portion of the variance of mathematics. Not surprisingly, the

larger portion of the variance was shared by the three predictors (15.3%). The total amount of

variance accounted for by the model was 37.8%. These findings suggest that a large portion

of the explained variance in mathematics is shared, however, some domains, i.e. verbal and

spatial-simultaneous WM, are uniquely predicting mathematics, over and above the effect of

the other WM domains.

Figure 2 about here

Additional analyses

All the analyses were replicated also including “measuring” and the results, not

reported, changed very little. Alternative models were tested for WM. In particular, we tested

a single WM factor, χ2(20) = 71.91, p < .001, RMSEA = .12, SRMR = .08, CFI = .87, NNFI =

.82, and a three factor solution, χ2(22) = 22.50, p = .16, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = .05, CFI =

.99, NNFI = .98. These analyses confirm that the fit of the three factor solution, which was

adopted in the current paper, was superior when compared to the other two models.

Discussion
WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 13

This paper aimed to investigate the independent contribution of verbal, spatial-

simultaneous, and spatial-sequential working memory to written mathematical performance

in 7- and 8-year old children.

From the correlation matrix (Table 1), it is evident that all elements of working

memory (besides those correlations between digit recall and spatial-simultaneous 4 × 4,

spatial-sequential 3 × 3, spatial-sequential 4 × 3, and block recall) are significantly correlated.

All other correlations between each of the measures taken for verbal, spatial-simultaneous,

and spatial-sequential working memory were statistically significant, both before and after

covarying for age. Results of this nature suggest digit recall may be measuring a different

construct to the other measures used to assess working memory, potentially relating to the

division of working memory tasks into active and passive tasks (as explained by Passolunghi

& Cornoldi, 2008).

In relation to our research question, variance partitioning demonstrates that 15.3% of

the variance of maths is shared between the three factors of working memory concerned. The

next largest proportion of variance explained is uniquely explained by verbal measures,

explaining 10.8% of the variance. This is interpreted as the amount of variance in

mathematics accounted for by verbal measures over and above the influence of all other

variables measured. This relationship with verbal working memory is consistent with studies

suggesting numerically-based verbal tasks are distinguishable from non-numerical verbal

tasks and are directly related to children’s mathematical performance (see Raghubar, Barnes

& Hecht, 2010 for a review of this literature).

Caution must also be exercised that reading was not measured alongside mathematics,

though previous research suggests that the relationship with verbal working memory remains

after partialling out reading ability (Wilson & Swanson, 2001; see Simmons, Willis &

Adams, 2012 for a similar argument in relation to elements of mathematics). In the current
WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 14

study, the extent of the impact of this was limited by allowing children to have questions of

the mathematics test read aloud to them if they wished. Whilst uptake of this offer was not

recorded explicitly, children did make use of the adults present to read the questions for them.

In line with previous findings, 37.8% of the variance of mathematical ability was accounted

for by verbal and visuospatial measures in total (see Giofrè et al., 2018 and Kyttälä & Lehto,

2008 for similar results).

Interestingly, the results did not show any unique variance explained by spatial-

sequential working memory. We had anticipated a larger involvement of spatial-sequential

working memory due to the additional active component, however were unsure what the

extent of this involvement would be. There are a number of potential explanations for this.

The first possible explanation is the ease with which such young children could perform the

tasks they were required to do. Whilst unlikely as the sole explanation, as we did not see a

floor effect in the data, the results did show positive skew, indicating that the majority of

children were performing at the lower end of the scale, therefore, they may have encountered

some difficulties with the instructions of the tasks. Note that the spatial-sequential task did

not require order during the recall phase, whereas the block recall task did, which may have

contributed to the last of floor effect [Link], there is evidence that children with high

and low mathematical ability are not distinguishable based on their spatial-sequential

working memory scores (Bull, Johnston & Roy, 1999; but see Andersson & Lyxell, 2007;

D’Amico & Guarnera, 2005; McLean & Hitch, 1999 for a different argument).

With regard to the contribution made by spatial-simultaneous working memory to

mathematics performance, a unique contribution of 3.4% is higher than expected, based on

previous literature (e.g., Kyttälä & Lehto, 2008; Swanson & Kim, 2007). This result is a

potential by-product of the way in which written mathematics questions are presented in a

standard testing procedure. In such a procedure, all information is presented to the child at
WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 15

once and so is available to the child at all times, hence presentation is in line with that of

simultaneous working memory measures. Future research could seek to mitigate this effect

by presenting a selection of mathematics questions in a sequential format (see Szucs and

Csépe, 2004a; Szucs & Csépe, 2004b), to ascertain whether this has any influence over the

results gathered. It should be noted that the sample here comprised typically developing

children attending mainstream primary schools, none of whom had been identified as

exhibiting specific mathematical difficulties. Previous research has identified a relationship

between the spatial component of working memory and mathematics (Passolunghi &

Mammarella, 2010; 2010), however, this effect has been shown to be stronger in those with a

mathematical difficulty (e.g. Mammarella, Caviola, Giofre & Szucs, 2018; Peng, Namkung,

Barnes, & Sun, 2016). As such, it would be reasonable to suggest that a more distinct profile

may have resulted from the current study had children with mathematical difficulties been

included in the sample.

There are some limitations inherent in this study that it will be necessary to address in

future work. Regarding the measures used, verbal measures involved the use of number

words, which could feasibly have altered the predictive relationship between verbal working

memory and mathematics performance. This is of particular significance in an age group in

which one would expect dramatic developmental changes. However, the use of such

measures is in line with previous work suggesting a component of working memory

responsible for numerical information (as reviewed by Raghubar, Barnes & Hecht, 2010),

hence the results generated are not entirely unexpected.

Continuing on from this, the study concerned only a narrow age group of typically

developing children. As such, it is not possible to examine any longitudinal changes relating

to age, or to highlight any differences between typical and atypical populations. In fact, from

7 years of age, there is a shift in mnemonic strategy with the emergence of rehearsal in
WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 16

children (Flavell et al., 1966; Gathercole, 1998; Henry, Messer, Luger-Klein, & Crane, 2012).

It is possible that some children might have used some sort of mnemonic strategy during WM

tasks. For this reason, the relationship between verbal-numeric working memory and

mathematic performance may have been underpinned by some sort of a subvocalization

process (e.g., rehearsal or other verbal strategies). Overall, it would appear incorrect to

assume that children approach the task in the same way (Flavell et al. 1966; Gathercole,

1998). For all these reasons, future studies should be performed to tackle this issue, for

example by trying to reduce the use of strategies during WM tasks.

For tasks that require serial recall there is some suggestion that a common order

mechanism is at play (Guerard & Tremblay, 2008). For verbal tasks, it is argued that

participants use subvocal rehearsal (e.g., speech-based motor-planning) to maintain the order

of to-be-remembered items (e.g., Jones, Hughes, & Macken, 2006). Children involved in this

study did appear to use sub-vocal/ vocal rehearsal during the presentation stage, in line with

these findings. For visuo-spatial material, the sequence could be maintained via ocular

movements (Tremblay, Saint-Aubin, & Jalbert, 2006; Morey, Mareva, Lelonkieqicz, &

Chevalier, 2017). There is some evidence (through similar error patterns (Guerard &

Tremblay, 2008) and susceptibility to interference from secondary tasks (Jones, Farrand,

Stuart, & Morris, 1995)) that the two forms of sequential-order memory have similar

underpinnings. It is quite surprising that the verbal sequential task correlated with

mathematical performance, but the spatial-sequential task did not. If children are indeed sub-

vocally rehearsing, then the relationship to mathematical performance may be attributable to

some sort of speech-motor planning (inner speech) that participants engage in when

attempting to solve mathematical problems (Rohrkemper, 1986), and not a domain general

ordering mechanism (otherwise the spatial-sequential task should have been related to

mathematical performance). In a similar vein, several studies indicate that the spatial-
WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 17

sequential WM component tends to be more strongly related to the mathematical

performance in both children with typical development and children with dyscalculia

(Mammarella, et al. 2018; Passolunghi & Mammarella 2010; 2012).

On possible explanation for this contradictory finding is that, in the particular

mathematical task used, simultaneous processes might take precedent over sequential

processing. The mathematical test that we decided to use encompass several abilities, e.g.,

geometry and there is some evidence indicating that some simultaneous tasks, tend to have a

greater contribution as compared to other sequential tasks (see Giofrè et al., 2013 on this

point). This observation is in line with other evidence indicating that the active manipulation

of the stimuli tends to be crucial later on in the curriculum, but not in the early stages (see

Giofrè, et al., 2014 on this point). This is also coherent with the observation that in some

tasks, such as fractions, holistic strategies, which require the simultaneous manipulation of

visual objects, seem to be very effective as compared to other strategies (e.g., Fabbri,

Caviola, Zorzi, & Butterworth, 2012). Consistently, evidence shows developmental

differences indicating that different mathematical training is effective in different age groups

(e.g., Caviola, Gerotto, Mammarella, 2016). Finally, there is some evidence that younger

children tend to use less reliable and less efficient strategies prior to a declarative shift in

strategy use (see Schneider, 2008 for a review of this), which might have influenced the

pattern of results we observed (e.g., Caviola, Mammarella, Pastore, Lefevre, 2018). For all

these reasons, the present findings should be replicated using a more diverse sample

including children at different levels of the mathematical curriculum.

The findings from this study have important implications for educational research. An

understanding of the elements of working memory that support mathematics development is

fundamental for educators aiming to improve children’s mathematical attainment. Research is

currently trying to exploit this relationship to generate working memory training programmes
WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 18

(e.g., Alloway, 2012; Holmes & Gathercole, 2014). However, at present, randomised

controlled trials have not identified evidence of transfer of effects onto academic tasks (e.g.,

Dunning, Holmes & Gathercole, 2013), though evidence is mixed (see Morrison & Chein,

2011 for a review of this literature). A recent randomised controlled trial by the Education

Endowment Foundation (Wright, Dorsett, Anders, Buzzeo, Runge and Sanders, 2019)

identified a non-significant positive influence of working memory training programmes on

working memory capacity and mathematics performance when teaching working memory

strategies. Caution should be applied when interpreting these results, however, as measures of

working memory capacity involved predominantly numerical recall tasks, though children

did show additional progress on mathematics measures. It would be of great benefit to

educators to understand the predictive nature of working memory for individual components

of mathematics as this would enable educators to highlight potential areas of vulnerability in

their students. In which case, there is scope for the provision of appropriate aids and

alternative methods to be put in place in an attempt to alleviate some of the child’s difficulties

in that particular area.

In conclusion, this study confirmed a positive relationship between working memory

tasks and mathematics attainment. Further verbal-numeric tasks appear to be more predictive

of mathematics performance when compared directly to spatial-simultaneous and spatial-

sequential tasks, suggesting numerical information is of higher predictive value than visual

information when the two are compared directly.

WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 19

References

Allen, K., Higgins, S., & Adams, J. (2019). The relationship between visuospatial working
memory and mathematical performance in school-aged children: A systematic review.
Educational Psychology Review. [Link]

Alloway, T. (2012). Can interactive working memory training improve learning? Journal of
Interactive Learning Research (Vol. 23).

Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., & Pickering, S. J. (2006). Verbal and visuospatial short-
term and working memory in children: Are they separable? Child Development, 77(6),
1698–1716. [Link]

Andersson, U. (2008). Working memory as a predictor of written arithmetical skills in

children: The importance of central executive functions. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 78(2), 181–203. [Link]

Andersson, U., & Lyxell, B. (2007). Working memory deficit in children with mathematical
difficulties: A general or specific deficit? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
96(3), 197–228. [Link]

Ashcraft, M. H., & Krause, J. A. (2007). Working memory, math performance, and math
anxiety. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 243–248.
[Link]

Ashkenazi, S., Rosenberg-Lee, M., Metcalfe, A. W. S., Swigart, A. G., & Menon, V. (2013).
Visuo–spatial working memory is an important source of domain-general vulnerability
in the development of arithmetic cognition. Neuropsychologia, 51(11), 2305–2317.
[Link]

Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556 LP – 559.

[Link]

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working Memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), The
Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 47–89). Academic Press.

Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423. [Link]

Baddeley, A. D. (2002). Is working memory still working? European Psychologist, 7(2), 85–
97. [Link]

Bull, R., Johnston, R. S., & Roy, J. A. (1999). Exploring the roles of the visual-spatial sketch
pad and central executive in children’s arithmetical skills: Views from cognition and
developmental neuropsychology. Developmental Neuropsychology, 15, 421–442.

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
WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 20

Experimental Child Psychology, 112(2), 141–160.

[Link]

Caviola, S., Mammarella, I. C., Lucangeli, D., & Cornoldi, C. (2014). Working memory and
domain-specific precursors predicting success in learning written subtraction problems.
Learning and Individual Differences, 36, 92–100.
[Link]

Caviola, S., Mammarella, I. C., Pastore, M., & LeFevre, J.-A. (2018). Children’s strategy
choices on complex subtraction problems: Individual differences and developmental
changes. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(JUL). [Link]

Caviola, S., Gerotto, G., & Mammarella, I. C. (2016). Computer-based training for improving
mental calculation in third- and fifth-graders. Acta Psychologica, 171, 118–127.
[Link]

Chuah, Y. M., & Maybery, M. T. (1999). Verbal and spatial short-term memory: common
sources of developmental change? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 73(1), 7–
44. [Link]

Clearman, J., Klinger, V., & Szucs, D. (2017). Visuospatial and verbal memory in mental
arithmetic. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(9), 1837–1855.
[Link]

Corsi, P. M. (1972). Memory and the medial temporal region of the brain. McGill University.

D’Amico, A., & Guarnera, M. (2005). Exploring working memory in children with low
arithmetical achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 15(3), 189–202.
[Link]

Deng, L., & Chan, W. (2016). Testing the Difference Between Reliability Coefficients Alpha
and Omega. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 77(2), 185–203.
[Link]

Dunning, D. L., Holmes, J., & Gathercole, S. E. (2013). Does working memory training lead
to generalized improvements in children with low working memory? A randomized
controlled trial. Developmental Science, 16(6), 915–925.
[Link]

Fabbri, S., Caviola, S., Tang, J., Zorzi, M., & Butterworth, B. (2012). The role of numerosity
in processing nonsymbolic proportions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
65(12), 2435–2446. [Link]

Flavell, J. h., Beach, D. R., & Chinsky, J. M. (1966). Spontaneous verbal rehearsal in a
memory task as a function of age. Child Development, 37(2), 283–299.
[Link]

Gathercole, S. E. (1998). The Development of Memory. Journal of Child Psychology and

Psychiatry, 39(1), 3–27. [Link]
WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 21

Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Ambridge, B., & Wearing, H. (2004). The Structure of
Working Memory From 4 to 15 Years of Age. Developmental Psychology. Gathercole,
Susan E.: Department of Psychology, University of Durham, Science Laboratories,
South Road, Durham, England, DH1 3LE: American Psychological Association.
[Link]

Giofrè, D., Donolato, E., & Mammarella, I. C. (2018). Verbal and visuospatial WM &
academic achievement. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 12(July), 1–6.
[Link]

Giofrè, D., Mammarella, I. C., Ronconi, L., & Cornoldi, C. (2013). Visuospatial working
memory in intuitive geometry, and in academic achievement in geometry. Learning and
Individual Differences, 23, 114–122. [Link]

Giofrè, D., Mammarella, I. C., & Cornoldi, C. (2013). The structure of working memory and
how it relates to intelligence in children. Intelligence, 41(5), 396–406.
[Link]

Giofrè, D., Mammarella, I. C., & Cornoldi, C. (2014). The relationship among geometry,
working memory, and intelligence in children. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 123, 112–128. [Link]

Guérard, K., & Tremblay, S. (2008). Revisiting evidence for modularity and functional
equivalence across verbal and spatial domains in memory. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(3), 556–569. .
[Link]

Henry, L. A., Messer, D., Luger-Klein, S., & Crane, L. (2012). Phonological, visual, and
semantic coding strategies and children’s short-term picture memory span. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(10), 2033–2053.
[Link]

Holmes, J., & Adams, J. W. (2006). Working Memory and Children’s Mathematical Skills:
Implications for mathematical development and mathematics curricula. Educational
Psychology, 26(3), 339–366. [Link]

Holmes, J., Adams, J. W., & Hamilton, C. J. (2008). The relationship between visuospatial
sketchpad capacity and children’s mathematical skills. European Journal of Cognitive
Psychology, 20(2), 272–289. [Link]

Holmes, J., & Gathercole, S. E. (2014). Taking working memory training from the laboratory
into schools. Educational Psychology, 34(4), 440–450.
[Link]

Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications.

SAGE Publications.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. [Link]
WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 22

Jones, D. M., Hughes, R. W., & Macken, W. J. (2006). Perceptual organization masquerading
as phonological storage: Further support for a perceptual-gestural view of short-term
memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(2), 265–281.
[Link]

Krousel-Wood, M., Muntner, P., Jannu, A., Hyre, A., & Breault, J. (2006). Does waiver of
written informed consent from the institutional review board affect response rate in a
low-risk research study? Journal of Investigative Medicine, 54(4), 174 LP – 179.

Kyttaelae, M., & Lehto, J. E. (2008). Some factors underlying mathematical performance:
The role of visuospatial working memory and non-verbal intelligence. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 23(1), 77–94.

Li, Y., & Geary, D. C. (2017). Children’s visuospatial memory predicts mathematics
achievement through early adolescence. PLOS ONE, 12(2).
[Link]

Li, Y., & Geary, D. C. (2013). Developmental Gains in Visuospatial Memory Predict Gains
in Mathematics Achievement. PLOS ONE, 8(7).
[Link]

Mammarella, I. C., Caviola, S., Giofrè, D., & Szűcs, D. (2017). The underlying structure of
visuospatial working memory in children with mathematical learning disability. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 36(2). [Link]

Mammarella, I. C., Borella, E., Pastore, M., & Pazzaglia, F. (2013). The structure of
visuospatial memory in adulthood. Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 99–110.
[Link]

Mammarella, I. C., Cornoldi, C., Pazzaglia, F., Toso, C., Grimoldi, M., & Vio, C. (2006).
Evidence for a double dissociation between spatial-simultaneous and spatial-sequential
working memory in visuospatial (nonverbal) learning disabled children. Brain and
Cognition, 62(1), 58–67. [Link]

McLean, J. F., & Hitch, G. J. (1999). Working Memory Impairments in Children with
Specific Arithmetic Learning Difficulties. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
74(3), 240–260. [Link]

Morrison, A. B., & Chein, J. M. (2011). Does working memory training work? the promise
and challenges of enhancing cognition by training working memory. Psychonomic
Bulletin and Review. [Link]

Passolunghi, M. C., & Cornoldi, C. (2008). Working Memory Failures in Children with
Arithmetical Difficulties. Child Neuropsychology, 14(5), 387–400.
[Link]

Passolunghi, M. C., & Mammarella, I. C. (2010). Spatial and visual working memory ability
in children with difficulties in arithmetic word problem solving. European Journal of
Cognitive Psychology, 22(6), 944–963. [Link]
WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 23

Passolunghi, M. C., & Mammarella, I. C. (2011). Selective spatial working memory

impairment in a group of children with mathematics learning disabilities and poor
problem-solving skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(4), 341–350.
[Link]

Peng, P., Namkung, J., Barnes, M., & Sun, C. (2016). A meta-analysis of mathematics and
working memory: Moderating effects of working memory domain, type of mathematics
skill, and sample characteristics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 455–473.
[Link]

Peters, G.-J. Y. (2014). The alpha and the omega of scale reliability and validity: Why and
how to abandon Chronbach’s alpha and the route towards more comprehensive
assessment of scale quality. European Health Psychologist, 16(2), 56–69.
[Link]

R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna,
Austria, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Raghubar, K. P., Barnes, M. A., & Hecht, S. A. (2010). Working memory and mathematics:
A review of developmental, individual difference, and cognitive approaches. Learning
and Individual Differences, 20(2), 110–122. [Link]

Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of

Statistical Software; Vol 1, Issue 2 (2012) .

Schneider, W. (2008). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and

adolescents: Major trends and implications for education. Mind, Brain, and Education,
2(3), 114–121. [Link]

Simmons, F. R., Willis, C., & Adams, A.-M. (2012). Different components of working
memory have different relationships with different mathematical skills. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 111(2), 139–155.
[Link]

Soltanlou, M., Pixner, S., & Nuerk, H.-C. (2015). Contribution of working memory in
multiplication fact network in children may shift from verbal to visuo-spatial: A
longitudinal investigation. Frontiers in Psychology, 6.
[Link]

Swanson, H. L., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. (2004). The relationship between working

memory and mathematical problem solving in children at risk and not at risk for serious
math difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 471–491.
[Link]

Swanson, H. L., & Sachse-Lee, C. (2001). Mathematical problem solving and working
memory in children with learning disabilities: Both executive and phonological
processes are important. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79(3), 294–321.
[Link]
WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 24

Swanson, L., & Kim, K. (2007). Working memory, short-term memory, and naming speed as
predictors of children’s mathematical performance. Intelligence, 35(2), 151–168.
[Link]

Szűcs, D., & Csépe, V. (2004). Similarities and differences in the coding of numerical and
alphabetical order using acoustic stimulation as revealed by event-related potentials in
humans. Neuroscience Letters, 360(1), 65–68.
[Link]

Szűcs, D., & Csépe, V. (2004). Access to numerical information is dependent on the modality
of stimulus presentation in mental addition: A combined ERP and behavioral study.
Brain research. Cognitive brain research (Vol. 19).
[Link]

Szucs, D., Devine, A., Soltesz, F., Nobes, A., & Gabriel, F. (2013). Developmental
dyscalculia is related to visuo-spatial memory and inhibition impairment. Cortex; a
Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 49(10), 2674–2688.
[Link]

Van de Weijer-Bergsma, E., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2015). Verbal and
visual-spatial working memory and mathematical ability in different domains
throughout primary school. Memory & Cognition, 43(3), 367–378.
[Link]

Wilson, K. M., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). Are mathematics disabilities due to a domain-
general or a domain-specific working memory deficit? Journal of Learning Disabilities,
34(3), 237–248. [Link]

Wright, H., Dorsett, R., Anders, J., Buzzeo, J., Runge, J. & Sanders, M. (2019) Improving
Working Memory: Evaluation Report London: Education Endowment Foundation.
Available at:
[Link]
s/Improving_Working_Memory_Report_final.pdf

Zheng, X., Swanson, H. L., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2011). Working memory components as
predictors of children’s mathematical word problem solving. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 110(4), 481–498. [Link]

Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and
McDonald’s ωh: Their relationship with each other and two alternative
conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70(1), 123–133.
WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 25

Figure 1. CFA model for spatial-simultaneous, spatial-sequential, verbal and mathematics

Coefficients are statistically significant (p < .05).
WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 26

Figure 2. Venn diagram indicating the shared and unique variance explained in mathematics

by spatial-simultaneous, spatial-sequential and verbal factors.

WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 27

Table 1
Correlation matrix with raw score correlations below the leading diagonal and covaried scores above, including means and standard deviations for each
measure.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Simultaneous 4 x 3 ― .685 .471 .420 .375 .339 .330 .143 .302 .312 .363 .238 .323 .315
2. Simultaneous 4 x 4 .681 ― .408 .425 .409 .297 .335 .091 .283 .251 .399 .285 .300 .296
3. Sequential 3 x 3 .470 .408 ― .550 .300 .266 .254 .086 .212 .230 .275 .195 .165 .197
4. Sequential 4 x 3 .418 .425 .550 ― .312 .185 .259 .093 .207 .190 .227 .212 .145 .224
5. Block recall .379 .409 .301 .313 ― .238 .264 -.026 .224 .116 .175 .159 .030 .140
6. Counting recall .343 .298 .267 .185 .241 ― .416 .294 .348 .331 .299 .224 .250 .206
7. Backward digit .333 .336 .255 .259 .266 .418 ― .253 .287 .313 .342 .240 .122 .131
8. Digit recall .143 .091 .086 .093 -.025 .295 .253 ― .098 .182 .164 .088 -.050 .112
9. Understanding and app .322 .278 .213 .204 .234 .351 .289 .099 ― .480 .512 .459 .378 .434
10. Count. and underst. .318 .251 .231 .191 .121 .334 .315 .183 .483 ― .618 .590 .407 .511
11. Knowing and using .370 .398 .276 .227 .180 .302 .344 .165 .517 .621 ― .645 .378 .470
12. Calculating .221 .282 .191 .209 .150 .216 .234 .086 .418 .577 .629 ― .359 .403
13. Understanding shape .322 .300 .165 .145 .031 .250 .123 -.050 .372 .408 .378 .354 ― .200
14. Handling data .304 .295 .195 .223 .136 .201 .128 .111 .407 .504 .462 .406 .198 ―
M 28.5 2.25 18.84 15.42 21.86 16.47 1.56 26.69 1.77 3.18 2.17 1.66 .9 1.36
SD 5.98 6.93 4.76 4.15 3.55 3.92 2.93 3.14 1.24 1.89 1.43 1.24 .98 1.18
Min. 5 1 7 2 6 6 1 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
Max. 42 39 38 29 32 26 19 47 6 9 6 5 4 5

Note. Correlations greater than .14 are statistically significant at the .05 level. All correlations greater than .18 are significant at the .01 level.
WM & MATHEMATICS IN CHILDREN AGED 7-8 28

Table 2.
Factor loadings, inter-factor and residual correlations for measures included in the model

Simultaneous Sequential Verbal Math

Simultaneous
1. Simultaneous 4 x 3 . 845**
2. Simultaneous 4 x 4 . 811**
Sequential
3. Sequential 3 x 3 .727**
4. Sequential 4 x 3 .705**
5. Block recall .486**
Verbal
6. Counting recall .670**
7. Backward digit recall .653**
8. Digit recall .370**
Mathematics
9. Understanding and applying .648**
10. Counting and understanding number .778**
11. Knowing and using number facts .817**
12. Calculating .742**
13. Understanding shape .491**
14. Handling data .593**
Inter-factor correlation matrix
Simultaneous 1
Sequential .758** 1
Verb .575** .518** 1
Math .518** .418** .568** 1

Note.
**
p < .01.