Nonverbal numerical ability supports individuals’ numerical information processing in everyday life and is also correlated with their learning of mathematics. This ability is typically measured with an approximate number comparison paradigm, in which participants are presented with two sets of objects and instructed to choose the numerically larger set. This paradigm has multiple task variants, where the two sets are presented in different ways (e.g., two sets are presented either simultaneously or sequentially, or two sets are presented either intermixed or separately). Despite the fact that different task variants have often been used interchangeably, it remains unclear whether these variants measure the same aspects of nonverbal numerical ability. Using a latent variable modeling approach with 270 participants (Mage = 20.75 years, SDage = 2.03, 94 males), this study examined the degree to which three commonly used task variants tapped into the same construct. The results showed that a bi-factor model corresponding to the hypothesis that task variants had both commonalities and uniqueness was a better fit for the data than a single-factor model, corresponding to the hypothesis that task variants were construct equivalent. These findings suggested that task variants of approximate number comparison did not measure the same construct and cannot be used interchangeably. This study also quantified the extent to which general cognitive abilities were involved in both common and unique parts of these task variants.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Data and analysis codes are available from the corresponding author upon request.
Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (2001). Introduction to measurement theory. Waveland Press.
Ansari, D. (2008). Effects of development and enculturation on number representation in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(4), 278–291. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2334
Braham, E. J., Elliott, L., & Libertus, M. E. (2018). Using hierarchical linear models to examine approximate number system acuity: The role of trial-level and participant-level characteristics. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2081. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02081
Brannon, E. M., & Merritt, D. J. (2011). Evolutionary Foundations of the Approximate Number System. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385948-8.00014-1
Chen, F. F., Hayes, A., Carver, C. S., Laurenceau, J. P., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Modeling general and specific variance in multifaceted constructs: A comparison of the bifactor model to other approaches. Journal of Personality, 80(1), 219–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00739.x
Chen, F. F., Jing, Y., Hayes, A., & Lee, J. M. (2013). Two concepts or two approaches? A bifactor analysis of psychological and subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(3), 1033–1068. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9367-x
Chen, Q., & Li, J. (2014). Association between individual differences in non-symbolic number acuity and math performance: A meta-analysis. Acta Psychologica, 148, 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.01.016
Clayton, S., Gilmore, C., & Inglis, M. (2015). Dot comparison stimuli are not all alike: The effect of different visual controls on ANS measurement. Acta Psychologica, 161, 177–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.09.007
Coffman, D. L., & MacCallum, R. C. (2005). Using parcels to convert path analysis models into latent variable models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40(2), 235–259. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr4002_4
Coolen, I. E. J. I., Riggs, K. J., Bugler, M., & Castronovo, J. (2022). The approximate number system and mathematics achievement: it's complicated. A thorough investigation of different ANS measures and executive functions in mathematics achievement in children. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2022.2044338
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2013.06.001
Dehaene, S. (2011). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. Oxford University Press.
Dietrich, J. F., Huber, S., & Nuerk, H. C. (2015). Methodological aspects to be considered when measuring the approximate number system (ANS) - a research review. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 295. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00295
Dueber, D. (2021). BifactorIndicesCalculator: bifactor indices calculator. R package version 0.2.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BifactorIndicesCalculator
Eid, M., Krumm, S., Koch, T., & Schulze, J. (2018). Bifactor models for predicting criteria by general and specific factors: Problems of nonidentifiability and alternative solutions. Journal of Intelligence, 6(3), 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6030042
Fazio, L. K., Bailey, D. H., Thompson, C. A., & Siegler, R. S. (2014). Relations of different types of numerical magnitude representations to each other and to mathematics achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 123, 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.01.013
Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., & Spelke, E. (2004). Core systems of number. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7), 307–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.05.002
Fuhs, M. W., & McNeil, N. M. (2013). ANS acuity and mathematics ability in preschoolers from low-income homes: Contributions of inhibitory control. Developmental Science, 16(1), 136–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12013
Gallistel, C. R., & Gelman, R. (2000). Non-verbal numerical cognition: From reals to integers. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(2), 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01424-2
Gebuis, T., & Reynvoet, B. (2011). Generating nonsymbolic number stimuli. Behaviour Research Methods, 43(4), 981–986. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0097-5
Gilmore, C., Attridge, N., Clayton, S., Cragg, L., Johnson, S., Marlow, N., Simms, V., & Inglis, M. (2013). Individual differences in inhibitory control, not non-verbal number acuity, correlate with mathematics achievement. PLoS One, 8(6), e67374. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067374
Gilmore, C., Cragg, L., Hogan, G., & Inglis, M. (2016). Congruency effects in dot comparison tasks: Convex hull is more important than dot area. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28(8), 923–931. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2016.1221828
Halberda, J., Ly, R., Wilmer, J. B., Naiman, D. Q., & Germine, L. (2012). Number sense across the lifespan as revealed by a massive internet-based sample. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(28), 11116–11120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1200196109
Halberda, J., Mazzocco, M. M. M., & Feigenson, L. (2008). Individual differences in non-verbal number acuity correlate with maths achievement. Nature, 455(7213), 665–668. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07246
Hu, L. T., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Hyde, D. C., & Mou, Y. (2016). Neural and behavioral signatures of core numerical abilities and early symbolic number development. In Development of mathematical cognition (pp. 51–77). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801871-2.00003-4
Kirchner, W. K. (1958). Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55(4), 352–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043688
Koch, T., Holtmann, J., Bohn, J., & Eid, M. (2018). Explaining general and specific factors in longitudinal, multimethod, and bifactor models: Some caveats and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 505–523. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000146
Lv, J., Mao, H., Zeng, L., Wang, X., Zhou, X., & Mou, Y. (2023). The developmental relationship between nonsymbolic and symbolic fraction abilities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 232, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2023.105666
Marsh, H. W., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Morin, A. J., & Trautwein, U. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Application to students' evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 439–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008220
Mou, Y., Berteletti, I., & Hyde, D. C. (2018). What counts in preschool number knowledge? A Bayes factor analytic approach toward theoretical model development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 166, 116–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.07.016
Mou, Y., Zhang, B., & Hyde, D. C. (2023). Directionality in the interrelations between approximate number, verbal number, and mathematics in preschool-aged children. Child Development. 94, e67–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13879
Norris, J. E., & Castronovo, J. (2016). Dot display affects approximate number system acuity and relationships with mathematical achievement and inhibitory control. PLoS One, 11(5), e0155543. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155543
Park, J., & Brannon, E. M. (2014). Improving arithmetic performance with number sense training: An investigation of underlying mechanism. Cognition, 133(1), 188–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.011
Passolunghi, M. C., Cargnelutti, E., & Pastore, M. (2014). The contribution of general cognitive abilities and approximate number system to early mathematics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 631–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12054
Piazza, M., Facoetti, A., Trussardi, A. N., Berteletti, I., Conte, S., Lucangeli, D., Dehaene, S., & Zorzi, M. (2010). Developmental trajectory of number acuity reveals a severe impairment in developmental dyscalculia. Cognition, 116(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.012
Price, G. R., Palmer, D., Battista, C., & Ansari, D. (2012). Nonsymbolic numerical magnitude comparison: Reliability and validity of different task variants and outcome measures, and their relationship to arithmetic achievement in adults. Acta Psychologica, 140(1), 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.02.008
Raven, J., Rust, J., Chan, F., & Zhou, X. (2018). Raven’s progressive matrices 2, clinical edition (Raven’s 2). In: Pearson.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Schneider, M., Beeres, K., Coban, L., Merz, S., Susan Schmidt, S., Stricker, J., & De Smedt, B. (2017). Associations of non-symbolic and symbolic numerical magnitude processing with mathematical competence: A meta-analysis. Developmental Science, 20(3), e12372. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12372
Smets, K., Moors, P., & Reynvoet, B. (2016). Effects of presentation type and visual control in numerosity discrimination: Implications for number processing? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 66. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00066
Smets, K., Sasanguie, D., Szücs, D., & Reynvoet, B. (2015). The effect of different methods to construct non-symbolic stimuli in numerosity estimation and comparison. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27(3), 310–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2014.996568
Starr, A., Libertus, M. E., & Brannon, E. M. (2013). Number sense in infancy predicts mathematical abilities in childhood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(45), 18116–18120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1302751110
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651
Stucky, B. D., & Edelen, M. O. (2015). Using hierarchical IRT models to create unidimensional measures from multidimensional data. In S. P. Reise & D. A. Revicki (Eds.), Handbook of item response theory modeling: Applications to typical performance assessment (pp.183–206). New York: Routledge.
Wei, W., Li, Y., & Su, H.-Y. (2020). Predicting the growth patterns in early mathematics achievement from cognitive and environmental factors among Chinese kindergarten children. Learning and Individual Differences, 79, 101841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101841
Wilkey, E. D., & Ansari, D. (2020). Challenging the neurobiological link between number sense and symbolic numerical abilities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1464(1), 76–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14225
Xenidou-Dervou, I., De Smedt, B., van der Schoot, M., & van Lieshout, E. C. D. M. (2013). Individual differences in kindergarten math achievement: The integrative roles of approximation skills and working memory. Learning and Individual Differences, 28, 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.09.012
Zhang, B., Luo, J., Sun, T., Cao, M., & Drasgow, F. (2023). Small but nontrivial: A comparison of six strategies to handle cross-loadings in bifactor predictive models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 58(1),115–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2021.1957664
Zhang, B., Sun, T., Cao, M., & Drasgow, F. (2021). Using bifactor models to examine the predictive validity of hierarchical constructs: Pros, cons, and solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 24(3), 530–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120915522
Open practices statements
The data and materials for this study are available at the Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/5FBKP), and this study was not preregistered.
This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32171070), Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (2021A1515010738), and Guangdong Philosophy and Social Sciences Foundation grants (GD19CXL04) to Y.M.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This manuscript has not been sent to Behavior Research Methods for peer review before, nor is it under consideration for publication elsewhere.
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Department of Psychology at Sun Yat-sen University.
About this article
Cite this article
Mou, Y., Xiao, H., Zhang, B. et al. Are they equivalent? An examination of task variants of approximate number comparison. Behav Res (2023). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02223-0