Identifying Differences in Early Mathematical Skills Among Children in Head Start

  • Qiong WuEmail author
  • Pui-wa Lei
  • James C. DiPerna
  • Paul L. Morgan
  • Erin E. Reid


The purpose of this study was to examine early mathematical skill differences among preschool children in US Head Start classrooms. Latent class analysis based on six early mathematical subtest scores (i.e. counting aloud, measurement, counting objects, numbers and shapes, pattern recognition, and grouping) from a sample of 279 Head Start children yielded evidence for a high-achieving class, a typical-achieving class, and a low-achieving class, relative to other children attending Head Start. Average skill profiles of the three latent classes were in general parallel to one another, reflecting that most of the differences across latent classes were in level rather than type of skills. Changes in subtest scores over a 3-month interval indicated that the skill levels of the low-achieving class at time 2 were still below those of the typically achieving class at time 1. These findings provide evidence for skill variability among children enrolled in Head Start and a group of children who appear unlikely to demonstrate the skill level of their peers without additional instruction or intervention.


early childhood Head Start latent class analysis mathematical difficulties mathematical skills 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Administration for Children and Families (2002). Head Start history. Retrieved December 16, 2005, from
  2. Aunio, P., Hautamäki, J. & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2005). Mathematical thinking intervention programmes for preschool children with normal and low number sense. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 20, 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer, D. J. & Curran, P. J. (2004). The integration of continuous and discrete latent variable models: Potential problems and promising opportunities. Psychological Methods, 9, 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berch, D. B. (2005). Making sense of number sense: Implications for children with mathematical disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 333–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chiu, M. (2007). Approaches to the teaching of creative and non-creative mathematical problems. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Correra, J., Nunes, T. & Bryant, P. (1999). Young children’s understanding of division: The relationship between division terms in a noncomputational task. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 321–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Denton, K. & West, J. (2002). Children’s reading and mathematics achievement in kindergarten and first grade. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  8. DiPerna, J. C., Morgan, P. L. & Lei, P.-W. (2007). Development of Early Arithmetic, Reading, and Learning Indicators for Head Start (The EARLI Project). Semi-Annual Performance Report to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families (Award No. 90YF0047/01).Google Scholar
  9. Dowker, A. (2005). Early identification and intervention for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 324–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duncan, G., Dowsett, C., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A., Klebanov, P. & Japel, C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428–1446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feigenson, L., Dahaene, S. & Spelke, E. (2004). Core systems of number. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 307–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gersten, R., Jordan, N. & Flojo, J. (2005). Early identification and intervention for students with mathematical difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ginsburg, H., Cannon, J., Eisenband, J. & Pappas, S. (2006). Mathematical thinking and learning. In K. McCartney & D. Phillips (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of early childhood development (pp. 208–229). Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jordan, N., Kaplan, D. & Hanich, L. (2002). Achievement growth in children with learning difficulties in mathematics: Findings of a two-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 586–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jordan, N., Kaplan, D., Locuniak, M. & Ramineni, C. (2007). Predicting first-grade math achievement from developmental number sense trajectories. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 36–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jordan, N., Kaplan, D., Olah, L. & Locuniak, M. (2006). Number sense growth in kindergarten: A longitudinal investigation of children at risk for mathematics difficulties. Child Development, 77, 153–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kroesbergen, E. & Van Luit, J. (2003). Mathematics interventions for children with special educational needs. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kroesbergen, E., Van Luit, J., Van Lieshout, E., Van Loosbroek, E. & Van de Rijt, B. (2009). Individual differences in early numeracy: The role of executive functions and subitizing. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27, 226–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lazarsfeld, P. & Henry, N. (1968). Latent structure analysis. New York: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  20. Lo, Y., Mendell, N. & Rubin, D. (2001). Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrika, 88, 767–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mulligan, J. & Mitchelmore, M. (2009). Awareness of pattern and structure in early mathematical development. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 21, 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Muthén, L. & Muthén, B. (2010). Mplus 6.12 [Computer software]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  23. National Council of Mathematics Educators (2004). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Retrieved May 15, 2004, from
  24. Nylund, K., Asparouhov, T. & Muthén, B. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monto Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 535–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. O’Sullivan, J. & Howe, M. (1996). Causal attributions and reading achievement: Individual differences in low-income families. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 363–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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, 27–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  28. Reardon, S. F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between rich and poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 91–115). New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Robinson, N., Lanzi, R., Weinberg, R., Ramey, S. & Ramey, C. (2002). Familiy factors associated with high academic competence in former Head Start children at third grade. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Siraj-Blatchford, I. & Nah, K.-O. (2014). A comparison of the pedagogical practices of mathematics education for young children in English and South Korea. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(1), 145–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stebbins, M. & McIntosh, D. (1996). Decision-making utility of the Bracken Basic Concept Scale in identifying at-risk preschoolers. School Psychology International, 17(3), 293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stein, M., Silbert, J. & Carnine, D. (1997). Designing effective mathematics instruction: A direct instruction approach (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  33. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (2005). Head Start Impact Study: First year findings. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  34. Vermunt, J. K. & Magidson, J. (2002). Latent class cluster analysis. In J. A. Hagenaars & A. L. McCutcheon (Eds.), Applied latent class analysis (pp. 89–106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. J. & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III tests of cognitive abilities and achievement. Chicago: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar
  36. Yang, X., Shaftel, J., Glasnapp, D. & Poggio, J. (2005). Qualitative or quantitative differences? Latent class analysis of mathematical ability for special education students. The Journal of Special Education, 38(4), 194–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Qiong Wu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pui-wa Lei
    • 2
  • James C. DiPerna
    • 2
  • Paul L. Morgan
    • 2
  • Erin E. Reid
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Social Science SurveyPeking UniversityHaidian DistrictChina
  2. 2.The Pennsylvania State UniversityPennsylvaniaUSA
  3. 3.University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations