Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 372

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Some types of parent number talk count more than others: relations between parents’ input and children’s cardinal-number knowledge

Open access
Gunderson, Elizabeth A., Levine, Susan C.·2011·Developmental Science

Abstract

Before they enter preschool, children vary greatly in their numerical and mathematical knowledge, and this knowledge predicts their achievement throughout elementary school (e.g. Duncan et al., 2007; Ginsburg & Russell, 1981). Therefore, it is critical that we look to the home environment for parental inputs that may lead to these early variations. Recent work has shown that the amount of number talk that parents engage in with their children is robustly related to a critical aspect of mathematical development - cardinal-number knowledge (e.g. knowing that the word 'three' refers to sets of three entities; Levine, Suriyakham, Rowe, Huttenlocher & Gunderson, 2010). The present study characterizes the different types of number talk that parents produce and investigates which types are most predictive of children's later cardinal-number knowledge. We find that parents' number talk involving counting or labeling sets of present, visible objects is related to children's later cardinal-number knowledge, whereas other types of parent number talk are not. In addition, number talk that refers to large sets of present objects (i.e. sets of size 4 to 10 that fall outside children's ability to track individual objects) is more robustly predictive of children's later cardinal-number knowledge than talk about smaller sets. The relation between parents' number talk about large sets of present objects and children's cardinal-number knowledge remains significant even when controlling for factors such as parents' socioeconomic status and other measures of parents' number and non-number talk.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01050.x

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 372

Metadata

Authors
Gunderson, E. A., & Levine, S. C.
Venue
Developmental Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-06-04
Volume
14
Issue
5
Pages
1021-1032
ISSN
1363-755X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2168106879
Cited by
372
References
4
FWCI
4.73
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Some types of parent number talk count more than others: relations between parents’ input and children’s cardinal-number knowledge. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01050.x
The paper
Gunderson, E. A., & Levine, S. C. (2011). Some types of parent number talk count more than others: relations between parents’ input and children’s cardinal-number knowledge. Developmental Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01050.x

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.