The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Developmental and individual differences in understanding of fractions.
Open accessAbstract
We examined developmental and individual differences in 6th and 8th graders' fraction arithmetic and overall mathematics achievement and related them to differences in understanding of fraction magnitudes, whole number division, executive functioning, and metacognitive judgments within a cross-sectional design. Results indicated that the difference between low achieving and higher achieving children's fraction arithmetic knowledge, already substantial in 6th grade, was much greater in 8th grade. The fraction arithmetic knowledge of low achieving children was similar in the 2 grades, whereas higher achieving children showed much greater knowledge in 8th than 6th grade, despite both groups having been in the same classrooms, using the same textbooks, and having the same teachers and classmates. Individual differences in both fraction arithmetic and mathematics achievement test scores were predicted by differences in fraction magnitude knowledge and whole number division, even after the contributions of reading achievement and executive functioning were statistically controlled. Instructional implications of the findings are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 · Cited by 15,798
Bull, R., & Scerif, G. (2001) · Developmental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1207/s15326942dn1903_3 · Cited by 1,501 · cited 1×
“…found to be related to whole number arithmetic; moreover, children with LA tend to exhibit executive functioning deficits relative to typically achieving peers (Bull & Scerif, 2001; Mazzocco & This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.”
BackgroundSwanson, H. L., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. (2004) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.471 · Cited by 638 · cited 1×
“Kover, 2007; Passolunghi & Pazzaglia, 2004, 2005; Swanson & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2004).”
Cited by
Lesner, T., Clarke, B., Kosty, D., Nelson, N., Ketterlin-Geller, L., & Smolkowski, K. (2023) · Learning Disability Quarterly · doi:10.1177/07319487231168385 · Cited by 3
AI Assistance Reduces Persistence and Hurts Independent Performance
Liu, G., Christian, B., Dumbalska, T., Bakker, M. A., & Dubey, R. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.04721 · Cited by 3
“…their difficulty is easy to experimentally manipulate, they are a foundational mathematical skill (Braithwaite & Siegler, 2021), struggles with fractions predict later difficulties in mathematics (Siegler & Pyke, 2013), and critically, performance on fraction problems improves with practice.”
Metadata
- Authors
- Siegler, R. S., & Pyke, A. A.
- Venue
- Developmental Psychology
- Published
- 2013
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1994-2004
- ISSN
- 0012-1649 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-0599
- OpenAlex
- W2212452465
- Cited by
- 305
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 10.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
