Journal of Numerical Cognition

jnc.psychopen.eu | 2363-8761

Research Reports

Identifying Domain-General and Domain-Specific Predictors of Low

Mathematics Performance: A Classification and Regression Tree Analysis

David J. Purpura* a, Elizabeth Day a, Amy R. Napoli a, Sara A. Hart bc

[a] Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA. [b] Department of Psychology,
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA. [c] Florida Center for Reading Research, Tallahassee, FL, USA.

Abstract
Many children struggle to successfully acquire early mathematics skills. Theoretical and empirical evidence has pointed to deficits in
domain-specific skills (e.g., non-symbolic mathematics skills) or domain-general skills (e.g., executive functioning and language) as
underlying low mathematical performance. In the current study, we assessed a sample of 113 three- to five-year old preschool children on a
battery of domain-specific and domain-general factors in the fall and spring of their preschool year to identify Time 1 (fall) factors
associated with low performance in mathematics knowledge at Time 2 (spring). We used the exploratory approach of classification and
regression tree analyses, a strategy that uses step-wise partitioning to create subgroups from a larger sample using multiple predictors, to
identify the factors that were the strongest classifiers of low performance for younger and older preschool children. Results indicated that
the most consistent classifier of low mathematics performance at Time 2 was children’s Time 1 mathematical language skills. Further, other
distinct classifiers of low performance emerged for younger and older children. These findings suggest that risk classification for low
mathematics performance may differ depending on children’s age.

Keywords: math, numeracy, preschool, risk status, classification and regression trees

Journal of Numerical Cognition, 2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399, doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53

Received: 2016-05-28. Accepted: 2017-05-28. Published (VoR): 2017-12-22.
Handling Editors: Silke Goebel, University of York, York, United Kingdom; André Knops, Humboldt-Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Hans-Christoph
Nuerk, Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
*Corresponding author at: Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Purdue University, 1202 W. State Street, Rm. 231, West Lafayette,
IN 47907-2055, USA. Phone: 1-765-494-2947. E-mail: purpura@purdue.edu
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, CC BY 4.0
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.

Given the importance of foundational mathematical skills for the acquisition of later mathematical skills (Geary,
1994), it is critical that all children be provided with maximal opportunities to develop these foundational skills
early in their academic careers. These opportunities are particularly important for those children who are most
at risk for later difficulties. Unfortunately, many children enter preschool significantly behind their peers in
foundational mathematical knowledge (Starkey, Klein, & Wakeley, 2004; Stevenson et al., 1990). Children with
early mathematical deficits usually develop skills at a slower rate than their peers (Aunola, Leskinen,
Lerkkanen, & Nurmi, 2004) and experience long-standing academic and career difficulties (Adelman, 1999;
Duncan et al., 2007; Evan, Gray, & Olchefske, 2006; McGregor, 1994).

Efforts to provide high quality early mathematics instruction to combat the challenges with early mathematics
development have shown promising results (Clements & Sarama, 2008; Starkey et al., 2004). However, initial
CART Analysis Preschool Math 366

impacts of high-quality interventions are often attenuated as a function of underlying general abilities after
children leave preschool (Bailey et al., 2016) and many children do not initially seem to respond to high-quality
mathematics instruction (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012)—potentially because they also experience deficits in
non-mathematical areas. Researchers and practitioners would benefit from more targeted and effective
methods for identifying which children are at-risk for later difficulties and, most importantly, the factors that help
predict risk, in order to develop more targeted and long-lasting instructional effects. This study addresses these
needs by utilizing classification and regression trees (CART), a method used for identifying higher-order
interactions among variables, to explore how the combinations of domain-specific factors (e.g., the approximate
number system [ANS], initial numeracy performance) and/or domain-general factors (e.g., executive
functioning, literacy/language) are associated with low mathematics achievement for preschool children.

Difficulties in Early Mathematics

The acquisition of early mathematics skills does not occur in isolation from other academic and cognitive skills.
A number of domain-specific (Chen & Li, 2014; Merkley & Ansari, 2016) and domain-general (LeFevre et al.,
2010; McClelland et al., 2007) factors have been found to be related to children’s acquisition of mathematical
skills (Geary, 2005; Geary & Moore, 2016). Importantly, when some of these factors are deficient, the severity
of mathematical difficulties is magnified (Barbaresi, Katusic, Colligan, Weaver, & Jacobsen 2005; Hanich,
Jordan, Kaplan, & Dick, 2001; Jordan & Hanich, 2000; Silver, Pennett, Black, Fair, & Balise, 1999). Despite
evidence indicating that such factors may be related to difficulties in mathematics skills, there is limited
agreement in the field on how to identify children who are likely to experience later difficulties in mathematics
(Watson & Gable, 2013). Some researchers hypothesize that difficulties in mathematics do not have a single
cause, but instead could be the result of deficits in a range of different factors or combinations of factors
(Jordan, Kaplan, & Hanich, 2002; Mazzocco & Myers, 2003). A number of theories regarding the origins of
difficulties in mathematics have been posited (for an in-depth review, see Andersson & Östergren, 2012;
Ashkenazi, Black, Abrams, Hoeft, & Menon, 2013). In general, these theories typically address individual
aspects of domain-specific and domain-general factors related to difficulties in mathematics (Geary, 2005).

Domain-Specific Factors
Researchers suggest that there are two core non-symbolic systems that may underlie symbolic mathematics,
the ANS and the object-tracking system (OTS), and deficits in one or both of these systems may result in
difficulties in mathematics (Dehaene, 2011; Piazza, 2010; Piazza et al., 2010). The ANS is an individual’s ability
to discriminate between two large numerosities (Halberda, Mazzocco, & Feigenson, 2008) and the OTS is a
system that allows individuals to discriminate between small subitizable sets (Trick & Pylyshyn, 1994). A fairly
substantial body of literature exists on the relation between the ANS and the symbolic numeracy system (e.g.,
skills such as counting, comparison, and addition) and it seems as though there may be a small and stable
relation between the domains (Chen & Li, 2014) that is strongest in young children (Fazio, Bailey, Thompson, &
Siegler, 2014; Inglis, Attridge, Batchelor, & Gilmore, 2011). This relation appears to be nonlinear (Bonny &
Lourenco, 2013; Purpura & Logan, 2015) with the ANS more related to earlier verbally-based counting skills
than to later print-based and calculation skills (e.g., numeral knowledge and addition; Chu, vanMarle, & Geary,
2015; Libertus, Feigenson, & Halberda, 2013). However, other researchers have found that the ANS may
actually be reflective of domain-general skills such as executive functioning as its relation to symbolic numeracy
skills is attenuated when controlling for response inhibition (Fuhs & McNeil, 2013). Thus, even though meta-
analyses have indicated a small relation between the ANS and symbolic numeracy skills, its validity as a

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
Purpura, Day, Napoli, & Hart 367

domain-specific skill has been questioned (Leibovich & Ansari, 2016). In contrast to the ANS, less work has
been conducted on the OTS, but this system appears to be active beginning in infancy and OTS deficits may
be suggestive of later difficulties in mathematics (Andersson & Östergren, 2012; Mou & vanMarle, 2014).

Beyond the ANS and OTS, researchers have indicated that challenges in acquiring specific aspects of the
symbolic numeracy system, such as cardinal number knowledge (Geary & vanMarle, 2016) and the numeral
system (Göbel, Watson, Lervåg, & Hulme, 2014; Merkley & Ansari, 2016), may underlie difficulties in
mathematics. Some have even suggested that these components of early numeracy are more related to low
mathematics performance than the ANS as they are more representative of school-taught mathematics skills
(De Smedt, Noël, Gilmore, & Ansari, 2013). It may be that more formal, school-taught, skills are
developmentally dependent on these aspects of early numeracy as the relation between informal skills (e.g.,
cardinality) to formal skills (e.g., addition) is mediated by numeral knowledge (Purpura, Baroody, & Lonigan,
2013) such that a deficit at any point in that development may result in subsequent deficits. As such, difficulties
in the acquisition of these symbolic numeracy skills may play a role in later low performance on measures of
broader mathematics skills.

Domain-General Factors
A number of domain-general factors also have been associated with low mathematics performance, including
broad structures of executive functioning and literacy skills as well as specific components of each of these
domains, and particularly components such as working memory and language.

Executive functioning — Executive functioning, broadly, is the cognitive processes needed to complete a
specific task or goal (Blair, Ursache, Greenberg, Vernon-Feagans, & the Family Life Project Investigators, 2015;
Ponitz, McClelland, Matthews, & Morrison, 2009). It has been found to be an important predictor of academic
success—particularly in mathematics (Allan, Hume, Allan, Farrington, & Lonigan, 2014; Fuhs, Nesbitt, Farran,
& Dong, 2014; McClelland, Acock, & Morrison, 2006). There are three primary components that comprise
executive functioning: working memory, response inhibition, and attention shifting (Lehto, Juujaarvi, Kooistra, &
Pulkkinen, 2003; Miyake et al., 2000). Some prior evidence indicates that components of executive functioning
may be differentially related to distinct components of mathematics (Lan, Legare, Ponitz, Su, & Morrison, 2011;
Purpura, Schmitt, & Ganley, 2017). In particular, much of the research focused on mathematical difficulties and
components of executive functioning has linked domains such as working memory and other aspects of a
general cognitive system with low mathematics performance (Raghubar, Barnes, & Hecht, 2010; Swanson &
Jerman, 2006; c.f. Landerl, Bevan, & Butterworth, 2004). Notably, in the domain-general cognitive deficit
hypothesis (Geary, 2004) it is proposed that children with low mathematical performance have a deficit in their
underlying domain-general cognitive system (e.g., executive functioning, processing speed) which limits their
ability to effectively acquire early mathematics skills.

Literacy and language skills — Though some research has connected both print knowledge (Brizuela, 2004;
Neumann, Hood, Ford, & Neumann, 2013; Purpura, Hume, Sims, & Lonigan, 2011; Purpura & Napoli, 2015)
and phonological awareness (Hecht, Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 2001; Koponen, Aunola, Ahonen, &
Nurmi, 2007; Krajewski & Schneider, 2009; Michalczyk, Krajewski, Prebler, & Hasselhorn, 2013; Simmons,
Singleton, & Horne, 2008; Vukovic & Lesaux, 2013b) to the development of children’s mathematical ability,
among literacy skills, children’s oral language abilities have the strongest connection to mathematical ability
(Praet, Titeca, Ceulemans, & Desoete, 2013; Purpura et al., 2011; Vukovic & Lesaux, 2013a, 2013b). LeFevre

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
CART Analysis Preschool Math 368

and colleagues (2010) found that the linguistic pathway of mathematics development was a stronger and more
stable pathway than either the quantitative or visual spatial pathways. Further, children with difficulties in both
mathematics and language tend to have more severe (Hanich et al., 2001; Jordan & Hanich, 2000) and
persistent (Silver et al., 1999) mathematics difficulties than children with mathematics difficulties alone.

Given the importance of language skills early on in children’s mathematics development, it is important to note
that evidence from other recent studies (Purpura & Logan, 2015; Purpura & Reid, 2016; Toll & Van Luit, 2014a,
2014b) indicates that a specific component of language that overlaps with both domain-general and domain-
specific skills—mathematical language (e.g., knowledge of words such as “many,” “few,” “near,” “before”)—is
actually a stronger and more proximal predictor of mathematics performance than general language skills and
other cognitive skills. Deficits in such knowledge, rather than in general language skills, may underlie deficits in
mathematical performance.

An Alternative Risk Status Assessment Approach: Classification and Regression

Trees
Given that domain-specific factors and domain-general factors have been independently associated with overall
mathematics performance and low mathematical performance in particular, it is evident that deficits in each
area and deficits in broad mathematical ability are likely to co-occur. However, separately assessing the
association between each domain and mathematical ability does not capture each domain’s relative importance
as a predictor or risk factor for low mathematical performance. A number of methods (e.g., discriminant
analysis, logistic regression) have been developed to utilize multiple domains to predict risk status for learning
difficulties in general (Hosmer & Lemeshow, 1989; Lachenbruch, 1975). One underutilized analytic method that
could be used to identify risk factors for classifying children at risk of low mathematics performance is CART
(Breiman, Friedman, Olshen, & Stone, 1984). Though a number of studies have used CART analyses in
reading difficulty classification (Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bryant, 2006; Koon, Petscher, & Foorman, 2014)
this method can also be applied to identifying children at risk of low mathematics performance.

CART is a strategy that uses step-wise partitioning to create increasingly homogenous subgroups from a
heterogeneous sample using a variety of predictor variables (Gruenewald, Mroczek, Ryff, & Singer, 2008;
Speybroeck, 2012). When the outcome variable is continuous, such as mathematics score, t-tests derived from
F tests determine splits that maximize the difference in average mathematics scores between subgroups
(Gruenewald et al., 2008). This continues until the predictors can no longer effectively split the subgroups.
Terminal subgroups are designated as “risk” or “no risk” based on the average mathematics score for the
children in the subgroup. Each subgroup, whether or not it is split, is labeled as a “node.” A node that cannot be
split is termed a terminal node. The results resemble a tree structure such as the example in Figure 1 (note this
is an example and does not use actual data). In this example, a full sample of 100 children was first split based
on Variable 1. Children with a score less than or equal to 14 had the lowest average Time 2 mathematics score
(Terminal Node 1; M = 14.52). Terminal Nodes 3 and 4 suggest that the combination of Variable 1 and Variable
2 was also associated with Time 2 mathematics score, such that children with a combination of high levels of
Variables 1 and 2 had the highest average Time 2 mathematics score (Node 4; M = 21.67), and those with
lower levels of Variable 2 had a lower average Time 2 mathematics score (Node 3; M = 18.20). In other words,
this tree suggests that low levels of Variable 1 is a risk factor for low mathematics performance, whereas high
levels of Variable 1 may serve as a protective factor for children with low levels of Variable 2. Importantly, these

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
Purpura, Day, Napoli, & Hart 369

pathways are interpreted as combinations of factors, not a sequence of events (Gruenewald, Seeman, Ryff,
Karlamangla, & Singer, 2006). CART is beneficial because it illuminates nonlinear pathways among the many
factors included in the model. However, as a single tree structure is sensitive to changes in the sample from
which they are created, “forests” of trees (i.e., all identified trees that account for significant variance in
classification) may provide insight as to which factors consistently predict the outcome across many trees,
rather than relying on a single tree (Strobl, Malley, & Tutz, 2009). CART analyses produce a series of potential
trees (i.e., a forest of trees) that illuminate all reasonable potential classification modes.

Figure 1. An example of a single recursive partitioning tree predicting math score at time 2. Note that this figure is an
example of a tree and is not based on real data.

Current Study
Given the early emergence of individual differences in mathematics development, there is a critical need to take
a broader view of early risk assessment for mathematics difficulties. Both domain-specific and domain-general
factors have been implicated in predicting risk of low mathematics performance. However, limited research has
examined risk classification methods from a multivariate perspective that includes a wide range of factors—
particularly with preschool age children. CART analyses are an appropriate method for evaluating such
relations.

To examine the classification utility of a range of domain-general and domain-specific factors, we utilize a
dataset that includes fall of preschool (i.e., Time 1) assessments of background demographics, numeracy skills,
ANS, literacy skills, executive functioning domains, and basic processing speed to conduct a CART analysis to
identify strong classifiers of low mathematics performance in the spring of the preschool year (i.e., Time 2). We
take an exploratory approach in this study given the mixed evidence on antecedents to low mathematical
performance classification and that CART analyses are data-driven and exploratory by nature. However, given
that specific mathematical skills and concepts develop in a connected and cumulative manner, called a learning

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
CART Analysis Preschool Math 370

trajectory, and that these domain-specific and domain-general factors likely play a role in mathematical
acquisition for more targeted components of mathematics development (Lan et al., 2011; Purpura & Napoli,
2015; Purpura, Schmitt, et al., 2017), we expected different factors to predict low mathematics performance for
younger preschool children and older preschool children. Importantly, we are defining the classification
outcomes as “low mathematical performance” rather than mathematical learning disabilities because of the
exploratory nature of the study. We also note that prior work using this dataset (Purpura & Logan, 2015) has
examined longitudinal predictors of general mathematics performance; however, the current study represents a
novel approach to examining classification of low performance in mathematics as it focuses on data-driven
classification strategies of children at risk for later low performance in mathematics.

Method

Participants
Data were collected in 12 private preschools in the Midwest of the United Sates serving children from a range
of socioeconomic statuses. Parents of 136 preschool children completed the study consent forms. Seven
children did not assent to participate, four left their school before testing was completed, one did not complete
all key measures, and eleven left their schools before the spring assessment. Children who left the study after
the fall assessment were not significantly different from completers on age, F(1, 123) = 0.25, p = .615 or fall
mathematics performance, F(1, 123) = 3.29, p = .072. Of the 113 children who completed the fall and spring
assessments, 54.0% were female. Children were 3.12 to 5.26 years old (M = 4.16, SD = .59). Students were
representative of local demographics (72.6% Caucasian, 1.8% African American, 1.8% Hispanic, 8.8% Asian,
15.0% multi-racial/other). With regard to parental education, 23.0% of participants had parents with a high
school education or less, 31.8% had at least one parent with a college degree, and 45.2% had at least one
parent with a postgraduate degree.

Measures
Early Mathematics
The Preschool Early Numeracy Skills Test – Brief Version (PENS-B) is a 24-item numeracy task that takes
approximately five minutes to administer. In the current sample, the measure had strong internal consistency
(Cronbach’s α = .93). The 24 items are representative of the broad range of early numeracy skills children are
expected to learn in preschool and kindergarten. Specific areas of assessment include: set comparison,
numeral comparison, one-to-one correspondence, number order, numeral identification, ordinality, and number
combinations. Children answered all 24 items and received one point for each correct answer. However, an
empirically-derived ceiling rule was applied during scoring where, after a child incorrectly responded to 3 items
in a row, s/he did not receive points for subsequent items (results were comparable regardless of the use of the
ceiling rule, but the rule was utilized to be consistent with the developed standards for the measure; Purpura,
Reid, Eiland, & Baroody, 2015). The test has been shown to have evidence of high reliability using both
classical test theory and item response theory metrics (Purpura et al.). Furthermore, the measure has evidence
of convergent validity as it is highly correlated with the Test of Early Mathematics Ability – 3rd Edition (TEMA-3; r
= .73) and evidence of discriminant validity as it is more related to another measure of numeracy skills than it
was to a measure of early literacy skills (Purpura et al.).

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
Purpura, Day, Napoli, & Hart 371

Approximate Number System

The Panamath Test (Halberda et al., 2008; www.panamath.org) was used to assess the ANS. Children were
presented with a series of arrays on the computer screen and had to identify quickly which of two sets of dots
was bigger. The program was set to 5 minutes and 4-years-old as the default setting across all children to
ensure all participants received comparable assessments. The default settings included four ratio bins (1.25 to
1.46, 1.46 to 1.71, 1.78 to 2.09, and 2.71 to 3.18) from which equal distributions of items were selected.
Percent correct (accuracy) was used as the measure of children’s ANS.

Language and Literacy Skills

Children were assessed on four measures of language and literacy skills, including the three subtests of the
Test of Preschool Early Literacy Skills (TOPEL; Lonigan, Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 2007) and a measure
of mathematical language (Purpura & Logan, 2015).

TOPEL — This measure includes three subtests: print knowledge, definitional vocabulary, and phonological
awareness. The print knowledge subtest measures print concepts, letter discrimination, word discrimination,
letter-name identification, and letter-sound identification. It has three sets of items and each has a separate
ceiling rule. There are a total of 36 items that are either multiple choice or free response and children are
awarded one point for each correct response. The definitional vocabulary subtest measures children’s single-
word spoken vocabulary and their ability to formulate definitions for words. There are a total of 35 items for
which children are shown a picture and asked to identify the object (e.g., “What is this?”) and describe its
function (e.g., “What is it for?”). Children are awarded one point each for identifying and describing for a
maximum of 70 total points. The phonological awareness subtest includes both multiple choice and free
response items involving blending and elision of words and sounds. There are a total of 27 questions divided
into four sets. Two sets use multiple choice questions and the other two are free response. Children are
awarded one point for each correct response. All three subtests have shown strong evidence of internal
consistency (Cronbach’s α = .95 for print knowledge, Cronbach’s α = .94 for definitional vocabulary, and
Cronbach’s α = .87 for phonological awareness) according to the examiner’s manual (Lonigan et al., 2007).

Mathematical language — The mathematical language subtest is an author-developed measure of

mathematical content language that has strong evidence of internal consistency in this sample (Cronbach’s α
= .85). The measure includes 16 items assessing comparative language (e.g., combine, more, less, take away)
and spatial language (e.g., near, far). Using an item response theory framework, these items were selected
from a larger battery of items. The selected items had a range of difficulty parameters and strong discrimination
parameters. All items were designed to be completed without exact quantitative skills and in a non-mathematics
context. For example, the more/less questions were asked in multiple ways: (a) comparing dots with such a
gross difference that, regardless of children’s mathematics ability, if they knew the meaning of the language
terms, they would be able to respond correctly (e.g., 10 vs. 2), and (b) using a picture of mostly full glasses and
a mostly empty glass when asking “Which glass has only a little bit of water?”

Executive Functioning
Measures of each of the three primary executive functioning components (i.e., response inhibition, attentional
shifting, and verbal working memory), as well as a broad measure of executive functioning, were used.

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
CART Analysis Preschool Math 372

Response inhibition — A modified Stroop-like task was used to assess response inhibition (Gerstadt, Hong, &
Diamond, 1994). Children were shown a page with pictures of suns and moons in a 5 x 6 layout and were
asked to say “moon” when they saw a picture of a moon and “sun” when they saw a picture of a sun. They
were then timed to see how many pictures they could respond to correctly in 45 seconds. Next, children were
asked to repeat the task saying the opposite of the picture. Children were not allowed to continue on to the next
picture until the previous picture was responded to correctly. The total score was the number of items
completed on the “opposite” trial in 45 seconds.

Cognitive flexibility — A version of the Dimensional Change Card Sort task (Zelazo, 2006) was used as a
measure of attention shifting. Children were asked to sort a variety of colored picture cards on the basis of
three dimensions: color, shape, and size. One set of items was given for each of the three dimensions. Then, a
fourth set of items that included two dimensions was given (i.e., children were told to sort on color if the card
had a black border and on size if the card did not have a border). Children received one point for each correct
response.

Verbal working memory — To assess working memory, we used the computerized listening recall task from
the Automated Working Memory Assessment (AWMA; Alloway, 2007). In this task, children listened to one or
more sentences, were asked whether each sentence was true or false, and then were asked to recall the last
word of each sentence in order. The task increased in difficulty after each set of questions (the first set of
questions children responded with the last word of one sentence, the next set two sentences, etc.). Children
were explicitly informed that they would need to remember the last word(s). The children completed trials within
each block until they did not recall any words from the sentences in the same block. Children were awarded
one point for each correct last-word they identified in the correct order. The outcome score was the total
number of times a participant accurately recalled the last word in a sentence across trials. This test has been
shown to have strong test-retest reliability (r = .88; Alloway, Gathercole, & Pickering, 2006).

Broad executive functioning — The Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders (HTKS) was used as a measure that
integrates cognitive flexibility, working memory, and response inhibition through a gross motor task (McClelland
& Cameron, 2012; McClelland et al., 2014). On the first part of this measure, children were instructed to touch
their toes when told to “touch your head” and vice versa. The measure includes three sections of ten items
each, with the task becoming progressively harder. Possible scores range from 0 to 60, with a total of 30 test
items receiving scores of 0 (incorrect), 1 (self-correct), or 2 (correct). Previous research indicates high inter-
rater agreement and evidence of convergent and predictive validity of this measure in assessing children’s
executive functioning (McClelland et al., 2007; McClelland et al., 2014).

Processing Speed
Rapid automatized naming (RAN) was used to measure processing speed as it has been shown to be highly
related to both mathematics and literacy skills (Georgiou, Tziraki, Manolitsis, & Fella, 2013). RAN was
assessed through a picture-naming task and a color-naming task. Children were initially asked to name four
common pictures (house, cat, car, pig). They were then presented with a page of 40 pictures (5 x 8) and asked
to name the pictures in order as fast as they could. If a child incorrectly named a picture or skipped a picture,
they were redirected back to that picture. The total time (in seconds) it took to name all 40 pictures was
recorded. After the picture task, the same task was repeated, but with colors (blue, red, green, black). The

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
Purpura, Day, Napoli, & Hart 373

average of the two completion times was used as the child’s RAN score. Higher scores on this task indicate
slower processing speed.

Covariates
Three background variables were also used in the analyses. These covariates were age, sex, and highest
parental education (scored on an 8 point scale ranging from less than 8th grade to doctoral/postgraduate
degree).

Procedure
Assessment Procedure
Children were assessed on all tasks in the fall of the academic year in three or four 20-30 minute sessions.
Testing was conducted in shorter sessions as needed. The testing was repeated in the spring (approximately
five months later). Assessments took place in the preschools at times identified by the schools in a room or
area designated by the school directors or teachers. Individuals who had either completed or were working
toward completion of a Bachelor’s degree in psychology, speech/language and hearing sciences, or human
development conducted the assessments. All testers completed two 2-3 hour training sessions where they
learned how to administer each of the assessments. Both individual and group practice sessions followed this
training. After approximately one to two weeks, all testers completed a “testing-out” session where they
administered the test to lead project staff in a mock testing session. During the testing out session, lead project
staff ensured all testers were fluent with the assessment measures and appropriately administered each task.

Analytic Strategy
Using IBMS SPSS Statistics 22, we utilized classification and regression trees (also termed recursive
partitioning) to explore the individual characteristics and combinations of characteristics that are associated
with low mathematics ability. Analyses were initially conducted using the full sample; however, those results
primarily resulted in group classification that appeared largely based on age given that all variables were raw
scores and most do not have normative age standard scores. Therefore, we split the sample into two age
groups at the median age – children age 4.16 or younger (n = 58), and children older than 4.16 (n = 55). For
each age group, we drew random subsamples to create forests of fifty trees. Classification and regression trees
are particularly beneficial for small sample sizes because of the relaxed assumptions compared to more
traditional regression analyses. Further, there are several benefits to using CART as a complement to more
traditional regression techniques. First, CART is a tool that can be used to more easily explore and interpret
nonlinear relations among variables (Gruenewald et al., 2008; Speybroeck, 2012). Second, it can be used to
explore and interpret multi-level interactions (Gruenewald et al., 2008; Speybroeck, 2012). It also deals with a
wide range of predictor variables (more variables are actually beneficial in CART analyses), and rather than
estimating the average effect of variables on the outcome (as is the case in multiple regression analyses), it
can estimate unique pathways for sub-groups of participants (Speybroeck, 2012). Finally, CART offers internal
tests of the replicability of findings (described in detail below). Therefore, in these analyses, we used
exhaustive chi-square automatic interaction detector (Biggs, De Ville, & Suen, 1991) to generate trees
predicting Time 2 mathematics score using an extensive range of covariates, mathematics score at Time 1,
mathematical language score, Panamath percentage, print knowledge, definitional vocabulary, phonological
awareness, verbal working memory, cognitive flexibility, response inhibition, HTKS, and RAN. Due to the

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
CART Analysis Preschool Math 374

multiple tests for significance used to create the tree, Bonferroni adjustments were made to reduce chances of
Type I error. To avoid overfitting the data (i.e., terminal nodes with 1 participant), we split continuous predictors
into tertiles prior to analysis.

After generating forests, we used several criteria to select the final trees to represent each age group. We used
a split-sample validation technique to test the robustness of each pathway; a test tree was grown in a randomly
selected 60% of participants and then replicated in a training tree using the remaining 40%. Using t-tests, we
compared mean levels of mathematics scores in each terminal node across the training and test trees.
Pathways that had significantly different mean scores were excluded from the final forest because they were
determined to be nonreplicable, as were trees in which terminal nodes contained less than 10% of the sample.
Finally, we calculated the proportion of variance explained by the tree using the equation:

Trees that contained substantially low proportions of variance in either the training or test trees were excluded
from the final forest for each age group.

Results

Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 provides descriptive statistics and correlations for all study variables. Mathematics score at Time 1 was
significantly correlated with all other variables for both age groups. Time 2 math was correlated with all other
variables in both age groups with the exception of verbal working memory for the younger group. There were
no significant differences in mathematics score at Time 1 or Time 2 between male and female students in either
age group, Younger - Time 1: t(56) = 0.57, p = .570; Time 2: t(56) = 0.61, p = .545; Older – Time 1: t(53) = 0.97,
p = .337; Time 2: t(53) = 0.50, p = .622.

Classification and Regression Tree Analyses

CART analyses resulted in nine trees for the younger age group and 12 trees for the older age group. Using the
trees, Time 1 variables that classified both low and high performance at Time 2 were identified. Low
performance was determined by identifying the terminal node with the lowest mean score in an individual tree
and high performance was determined by identifying the node with highest mean performance in an individual
tree. Though classification of high performance was not an explicit goal of this study, we present the data to
show the consistency of classifiers for low and high mathematics performance.

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
 Table 1
Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for all Measures

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
1. Time 1 Math − .62*** .64*** .68*** .48*** .43** -.46*** .39** .51*** .64*** .48*** .68***

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2. Mathematical language .56*** − .62*** .54*** .61*** .41** -.44*** .46*** .46*** .51*** .41** .61***

3. ANS .51*** .66*** − .51*** .38** .51*** -.41** .14 .57*** .46*** .54*** .59***

4. Print knowledge .51*** .63*** .58*** − .57*** .37** -.38** .27* .43** .55*** .30* .58***

5. Definitional vocabulary .35** .59*** .42** .37** – .39** -.47*** .31* .27* .39** .18 .53***
Purpura, Day, Napoli, & Hart

6. Phonological awareness .32* .42** .31* .34* .37** – -.44*** .36** .28* .32* .37** .45***

7. RAN -.44** -.46*** -.32* -.42** -.35** -.11 − -.32* -.33* -.36** -.25 -.31*

8. Response inhibition .47*** .53*** .46*** .62*** .35** .19 -.45*** − .21 .40** .25 .29*

9. HTKS .40** .45*** .35** .39** .38** .37** -.20 .27* − .30* .35** .36**

10. Cognitive flexibility .49*** .56*** .32* .38** .25 .18 -.36** .34* .41*** − .29* .38**

11. Verbal working memory .33* .22 .27 .30* .28* .29* -.17 .07 .26 -.06 − .38**

12. Time 2 Math .56*** .65*** .55*** .55*** .38** .34* -.45*** .53*** .50*** .50*** .26 −

Younger Sample

M 7.44 10.09 61.86 14.65 44.33 13.34 89.18 16.85 7.44 11.24 1.09 11.25

SD 4.41 3.87 15.06 10.20 13.56 4.80 32.80 7.23 13.32 6.10 1.80 5.38

Range 0 to 19 2 to 16 27.50 to 86.25 0 to 36 8 to 66 5 to 26 46.50 to 172.25 3 to 35 0 to 52 4 to 22 0 to 6 2 to 23

Older Sample

M 13.24 12.81 72.80 22.41 56.91 16.16 66.62 23.21 13.22 15.67 2.47 15.60

SD 5.55 2.81 16.25 10.39 6.33 5.57 17.94 7.58 15.74 6.19 3.25 5.69

Range 0 to 23 2 to 16 41.25 to 100 1 to 36 36 to 66 5 to 27 37.50 to 111.00 0 to 36 0 to 56 4 to 22 0 to 11 0 to 24

Note. Below the diagonal are correlations for the younger sample (n = 55) and above the diagonal are correlations for the older sample (n = 58). ANS = approximate number system;
RAN = Rapid automatized naming; HTKS = Head, toes, knees, shoulders activity.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
375
CART Analysis Preschool Math 376

In Table 2, the variables that predict low and high mathematics performance for younger children are
presented.

Table 2
Forest of Trees for Time 1 Variables Predicting the Lowest and Highest Scores at Time 2 for Younger Children

2
Tree R M T2 Math Sex ML ANS PK RI HTKS CF

Predictors of Low Performance

1 53.39 4.43 ≤7 ≤ 21
2 52.15 7.39 ≤ 10
3 32.26 6.50 Male ≤ 66.25
4 30.85 7.20 ≤7
5 29.44 7.67 ≤7
6 16.14 9.00 ≤6
7 14.18 5.50 ≤ 11
8 13.47 3.00 ≤7 0
9 11.49 8.00 ≤8
Predictors of High Performance
1 53.39 15.67 > 21
2 52.15 12.44 >10
3 32.26 14.44 > 66.25
4 30.85 17.00 > 11 >7 >2
5 29.44 14.67 >12
6 16.14 14.75 > 13 >6
7 14.18 13.22 > 20
8 13.47 11.79 >7
9 11.49 13.60 > 13
Note. T2 = Time 2; ML = Mathematical language; ANS = approximate number system; PK = Print knowledge; RI = Response inhibition;
HTKS = Head, toes, knees, shoulders activity; CF = Cognitive flexibility. Variables with no significant predictors are not included in the table.

In Table 3, the variables that predict low and high mathematics performance for older children are presented.
Variables that were included in the analyses but did not result as significant predictors for an age group are not
included in the tables. Visuals of all of the trees can be found in the Appendix. Given the exploratory nature of
the study, it is best to examine trends across the forest to identify factors that appear to be strong classifiers of
low and high mathematics performance so as not to over-interpret the findings; however, we also describe the
trees that accounted for the most variance for younger and older children to provide descriptive examples of the
findings.

Younger Children
As can be seen in Table 2, for younger children, a total of seven variables (sex, mathematical language, ANS,
print knowledge, response inhibition, HTKS, and cognitive flexibility) each appeared in at least one pathway
predicting the lowest mathematical scores at Time 2. Individually and in combination with other factors, the
most common predictors of low mathematics performance at Time 2 were Time 1 scores on mathematical
language, print knowledge, and response inhibition. Similar patterns of predictors emerged for predicting high
performance on Time 2 mathematics based on Time 1 variables.

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
Purpura, Day, Napoli, & Hart 377

Table 3
Forest of Trees for Time 1 Variables Predicting the Lowest and Highest Scores at Time 2 for Older Children

2
Tree R M T2 Math T1 Math ML ANS PK DV PA VWM

Predictors of Low Performance

1 44.31 10.40 ≤ 11
2 43.81 13.27 ≤ 14
3 39.98 12.50 ≤ 12
4 35.88 12.83 ≤ 14 ≤ 56
5 35.68 8.50 ≤ 10 ≤ 12
6 30.72 11.92 ≤ 12
7 27.24 13.13 ≤ 76.25 ≤ 59
8 22.74 9.67 ≤ 12 ≤ 12
9 21.67 8.00 11-14 ≤ 56 ≤1
10 18.88 14.29 ≤ 56
11 13.40 14.75 ≤ 14
12 12.04 14.00 ≤ 12
Predictors of High Performance
1 44.31 20.78 > 14
2 43.81 22.25 > 14 > 60
3 39.98 19.20 > 12 > 19
4 35.88 20.13 > 14
5 35.68 18.33 > 10
6 30.72 20.50 > 17 > 14
7 27.24 19.63 > 59
8 22.74 20.25 > 14
9 21.67 22.20 > 14 > 60
10 18.88 20.29 > 60
11 13.40 18.00 > 14 > 30
12 12.04 21.50 > 14 > 60
Note. T2 = Time 2; T1 = Time 1; ML = Mathematical language; ANS = approximate number system; PK = Print knowledge; DV =
Definitional vocabulary; PA = Phonological awareness; VMW = Verbal working memory. Variables with no significant predictors are not
included in the table.

The percentage of variance in Time 2 mathematics scores explained by the trees ranged from 11.49% to
53.39%. Tree 1 (Figure 2) accounted for the highest percentage of variance in mathematics scores at Time 2,
and it also predicted the greatest discrepancy between high and low average mathematics scores. In this tree,
a response inhibition score greater than 21 was associated with a high average mathematics score (15.67),
whereas a response inhibition score less than or equal to 21 in combination with a mathematical language
score less than or equal to 7 was associated with a low average mathematics score (4.43). This suggests that
for children between the ages of 3.12 and 4.16, greater response inhibition is linked to greater mathematical
ability, whereas the combination of lower levels of response inhibition and lower levels of mathematical
language skills is a strong classifier of later low mathematical performance.

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
CART Analysis Preschool Math 378

Figure 2. The tree that accounted for the most variance in classifying younger children included nodes for both response
inhibition and mathematical language such that the combination of low response inhibition and low mathematical language
indicated those children who would be the lowest performers on mathematical knowledge at time 2. Note that the test tree
(40% of total sample) is presented not the initial training tree (60% of sample).

Older Children
As can be seen in Table 3, for older children, a total of five different variables (Time 1 math, mathematical
language, ANS, definitional vocabulary, and verbal working memory) each appeared in at least one pathway
predicting the lowest mathematics scores at Time 2. Individually and in combination with other factors, the most
common predictors of low mathematics performance at Time 2 were Time 1 scores on mathematics,
mathematical language, and definitional vocabulary. Similar patterns of predictors emerged for predicting high
performance on Time 2 mathematics based on Time 1 variables; however, print knowledge and phonological
awareness each predicted one pathway but the ANS and verbal working memory did not. Similar to predicting
lower mathematics performance, Time 1 mathematics, mathematical language, and definitional vocabulary
were the most common predictors of high performance.

The percentage of variance in Time 2 mathematics scores explained by the trees ranged from 12% to 44%.
Trees 1 and 2 (Figure 3) accounted for the greatest percentage of variance in Time 2 mathematics score (about
44%). In both trees, lower mathematical language scores were associated with less mathematical ability at
Time 2. In Tree 1, mathematical language scores greater than 14 were associated with the highest average
Time 2 mathematics score (20.78). In Tree 2, however, children with mathematical language scores greater
than 14 in combination with definitional vocabulary greater than 60 had the highest average mathematics score
at Time 2 (22.25). These findings suggest that greater mathematical language and definitional vocabulary skills
are linked to greater mathematical ability, whereas low mathematical language scores alone were a strong
classifier of low mathematics performance.

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
Purpura, Day, Napoli, & Hart 379

Figure 3. The trees that accounted for the most variance in classifying older children included nodes for mathematical
language. The first tree includes a split just for mathematical language. The second tree also included a node for
mathematical language that is then split again based on general language such that a combination of high mathematical
language and high general language indicated high performance in mathematical knowledge at time 2. Note that the test
trees (40% of total sample) are presented not the initial training trees (60% of sample).

Discussion
In this study, we examined a variety of domain-general and domain-specific factors to determine classification
of low and high mathematical performance using CART analyses, a person-centered analytic strategy designed
to highlight potential higher-order interactions among variables. One of the key findings from this study is that it
appears that domain-general factors (e.g., language and executive functioning) seem to be better classifiers of
low performance than are domain-specific predictors (e.g., ANS and numeracy skills), particularly for younger
children. This is despite the strong correlations between domain-specific factors and mathematics performance
at Time 1 and Time 2. Though general language was a strong classifier for older children, mathematical
language was a more consistent and robust classifier across age groups. Mathematical language has been
classified in this study as a domain-general variable, but it should be noted that it also highly overlaps with
domain-specific skills as it is comprised of content-specific language. In prior work, it has been found to be
similarly related to both general language (domain-general skills) and numeracy performance (domain-specific
skills) (Purpura & Reid, 2016).

The pattern of results found in this study may be due to one of two potential reasons. First, mathematical
language and executive functioning skills seemed to be the strongest and most consistent classifiers of low
performance. Both of these domains have been reported to be foundational for early mathematics development
(Blair & Raver, 2015; Purpura, Napoli, Wehrspann, & Gold, 2017; Schmitt, McClelland, Tominey, & Acock,
2015). Further, these findings align with evidence from twin studies that suggest that general genetic

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
CART Analysis Preschool Math 380

influences, potentially related to domain-general influences, underlie achievement across both general
mathematics performance and mathematics difficulty (Plomin & Kovas, 2005). Given the limited time spent
during the preschool year on mathematics skills in general (Piasta, Pelatti, & Miller, 2014), children deficient in
either or both mathematical language and executive function may not have had the foundational skills
necessary to benefit from that limited amount of instruction.

Second, it is evident that Time 1 mathematics performance is a better classifier of both low and high
performance for older children than it is for younger children. This finding indicates that mathematics ability may
be more stable for older preschoolers than for younger preschoolers. However, it may also be indicative of low
performance in mathematics being the result of difficulties in non-mathematical areas such as language. These
findings are supported by recent evidence using CART analyses with elementary school age children that
found literacy and language skills were better classifiers of low mathematics performance than was initial
mathematics performance (Truckenmiller, Petscher, Gaughan, & Dwyer, 2016). Further, the ANS was not a
strong classifier of low performance which is inconsistent with literature that suggests it is an underlying feature
of mathematical difficulties (Mazzocco, Feigenson, & Halberda, 2011), but aligns with other evidence that
indicates the ANS is not likely to be a core facet in the development of mathematics difficulties (De Smedt et
al., 2013). It is possible that that the ANS may be important in the development of symbolic mathematics skills,
but only in a time- or developmental-phase limited fashion. For example, Chu and colleagues (2015) found that
the ANS was related to informal mathematics skills, but not formal, and Purpura and Logan (2015) found that
the ANS was a classifier of low mathematics performance but not moderate or high. Given the results of the
current study, it appears unlikely that the ANS underlies mathematics difficulties as it is not a strong classifier of
risk status. It may be that, in prior work, the ANS was acting as a proxy for other more important variables such
as response inhibition or mathematical language skills.

Of particular importance in this study, the most consistent predictor of low mathematics performance in both
age groups at Time 2 was Time 1 mathematical language. Both parent and teacher mathematical language talk
are associated with children’s growth in mathematics skills before and during preschool (Boonen, Kolkman, &
Kroesbergen, 2011; Levine, Suriyakham, Rowe, Huttenlocher, & Gunderson, 2010) and recent evidence
suggests that mathematical language underlies the development of symbolic numeracy skills (Purpura, Napoli,
et al., 2017). It may be that in classrooms or homes lacking such foundational inputs, children do not have
access to the necessary foundation upon which to build their mathematical knowledge. This aligns with
previous work identifying mathematical language as one of the strongest predictors of early mathematics skills
(Purpura & Logan, 2015; Toll & Van Luit, 2014a) and evidence suggesting that language skills may exacerbate
difficulties in mathematics (Hanich et al., 2001; Jordan & Hanich, 2000; Silver et al., 1999).

Finally, one noted difference between the classifiers for younger and older preschool children was that
executive functioning skills (particularly response inhibition) and print knowledge were common classifiers for
younger children and general vocabulary skills were a common classifier for older children. The finding for
younger children is supportive of evidence indicating that executive functioning skills are foundational for other
school readiness domains (Blair & Raver, 2015) and particularly for math (Schmitt, Pratt, & McClelland, 2014).
Further, the print system—connecting symbols to their names and quantities—has been identified as a critical
connection between informal and formal mathematics skills and children who have difficulties with the symbolic
number system often have mathematical learning disabilities (Merkley & Ansari, 2016; Purpura et al., 2013;
Rousselle & Noel, 2007). Though the print knowledge measure in this study is a measure of literacy related

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
Purpura, Day, Napoli, & Hart 381

print skills, it may be acting as a proxy for more general code-related mapping skills (Koponen et al., 2013).
Finally, the finding for older children indicates that general language skills in addition to content-specific
mathematical language may be related to low and high performance in mathematics which suggests that
multiple aspects of language, or more complex and advanced language, may be integral for the successful
acquisition of mathematics skills in preschool. However, it is also possible that this measure of general
vocabulary skills was acting as a proxy for more general ability such as IQ, which was not measured in this
study.

Limitations and Future Directions

Though a relatively clear and logical set of classifiers of performance was identified across both older and
younger children, there are a number of limitations that must be discussed. First, though there are no pre-
specified sample sizes necessary for CART analyses and they are often used with smaller samples, the sample
still may have been too small to identify reliable additional splits after the first or second splits. Subsequent
studies should include larger samples of children within these age ranges. Further, the median split utilized to
separate the sample into two age groups still resulted in groups that were relatively close in age (i.e.,
approximately one year difference). To better test if risk classification for low mathematics performance may
differ depending on children’s age, contrasts between samples with slightly larger age differences (e.g., 3 year
olds vs. 5 year olds) or analyses predicting risk for the same children across different time points (e.g.,
predicting risk for the same children at 3 years old and then again for the same sample at 4 years old) should
be conducted in future research.

Second, the sample was of somewhat higher average parental education than the typical population. A more
diverse sample, as well as a sample with lower overall mathematical abilities, may reveal additional nodes not
identified in the current study.

Third, in this study we only utilized one broad measure of symbolic numeracy skills rather than measures of the
diversity of subdomains within the construct (e.g., cardinality, numeral knowledge). Recent evidence has
suggested that cardinal number knowledge (Geary & vanMarle, 2016) and knowledge of the formal numeral
system (Göbel et al., 2014; Merkley & Ansari, 2016; Purpura, Baroody, & Lonigan, 2013), may be specific
components of the symbolic system that, individually, may be stronger classifiers of risk for later difficulties than
a broad general measure. Similarly, some evidence has indicated that the OTS may be a domain-specific skill
that is important for symbolic mathematics develop (Andersson & Östergren, 2012; Mou & vanMarle, 2014), but
only at earlier stages in development (vanMarle, Chu, Mou, Seok, Rouder, & Geary, 2016). Unfortunately, a
measure of the OTS was not included in the current study. Though the measure of symbolic numeracy skills
was not revealed to be a consistent predictor of risk for younger children, more targeted components of
numeracy may be unique predictors at different ages as the acquisition of these targeted skills may be
indicators of critical junctions in mathematical development. Subsequent work should include a broader range
of more targeted domain-specific measures.

Fourth, though we included a broad range of domain-general and domain-specific variables, a broader indicator
of general IQ was not included. It is possible that IQ or other measures of general cognitive ability may be
better classifiers of risk status as some evidence suggests that a significant portion of variance in mathematical
development is accounted for by general cognitive abilities (Schenke, Rutherford, Lam, & Bailey, 2016).

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
CART Analysis Preschool Math 382

Finally, though appropriate for the sample and as a first use of CART analyses in examining classification of low
mathematics performance, these analyses were exploratory. CART analyses do, however, include an internal
replication analysis (training versus test tree) which does significantly limit spurious findings. There were a
number of trees that were removed from the forest analyses because the replication across the test and
training trees was not successful. Further follow up studies are needed to replicate and extend these findings.

Conclusions
Prior theoretical and empirical work examining predictors of low mathematical performance has yielded little
consensus regarding the underlying causes of low mathematics performance, and some researchers have
suggested that there may be multiple underlying causes of mathematical difficulties (Jordan et al., 2002;
Mazzocco & Myers, 2003). The findings from this study support this notion that multiple factors, particularly
mathematical language and executive functioning, may underlie low mathematics performance or at least be
strong mechanisms for classifying children who are likely to have later low mathematics knowledge. However,
and critically important, the factors associated with performance classification may differ by age. Future work
examining more targeted classification strategies across ages is needed.

Funding
The authors have no funding to report.

Competing Interests
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Acknowledgments
The authors have no support to report.

References

Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the toolbox: Academic intensity, attendance patterns and bachelor’s degree attainment.
Washington, DC, USA: Department of Education.

Allan, N. P., Hume, L. E., Allan, D. M., Farrington, A. L., & Lonigan, C. J. (2014). Relations between inhibitory control and
the development of academic skills in preschool and kindergarten: A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 50,
2368-2379. doi:10.1037/a0037493

Alloway, T. P. (2007). Automated Working Memory Assessment. London, United Kingdom: Harcourt Assessment.

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, 1698-1716. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00968.x

Andersson, U., & Östergren, R. (2012). Number magnitude processing and basic cognitive functions in children with
mathematical learning disabilities. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 701-714. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.05.004

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
Purpura, Day, Napoli, & Hart 383

Ashkenazi, S., Black, J. M., Abrams, D. A., Hoeft, F., & Menon, V. (2013). Neurobiological underpinnings of math and
reading learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 549-569. doi:10.1177/0022219413483174

Aunola, K., Leskinen, E., Lerkkanen, M.-K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2004). Developmental dynamics of math performance from
preschool to grade 2. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 699-713. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.699

Bailey, D. H., Nguyen, T., Jenkins, J. M., Domina, T., Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. S. (2016). Fadeout in an early
mathematics intervention: Constraining content or pre-existing differences? Developmental Psychology, 52, 1457-1469.
doi:10.1037/dev0000188

Barbaresi, W. J., Katusic, S. K., Colligan, R. C., Weaver, A. L., & Jacobsen, S. J. (2005). Math learning disorder: Incidence
in a population-based birth cohort, 1976-82, Rochester, Minn. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 5, 281-289.
doi:10.1367/A04-209R.1

Biggs, D., De Ville, B., & Suen, E. (1991). A method of choosing multiway partitions for classification and decision trees.
Journal of Applied Statistics, 18, 49-62. doi:10.1080/02664769100000005

Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2015). School readiness and self-regulation: A developmental psychobiological approach. Annual
Review of Psychology, 66, 711-731. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015221

Blair, C., Ursache, A., Greenberg, M., Vernon-Feagans, L., & Family Life Project Investigators. (2015). Multiple aspects of
self-regulation uniquely predict mathematics but not letter–word knowledge in the early elementary grades.
Developmental Psychology, 51, 459-472. doi:10.1037/a0038813

Bonny, J. W., & Lourenco, S. F. (2013). The approximate number system and its relation to early math achievement:
Evidence from the preschool years. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 375-388.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2012.09.015

Boonen, A. J. H., Kolkman, M. E., & Kroesbergen, E. H. (2011). The relation between teachers’ math talk and the
acquisition of number sense with kindergarten classrooms. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 281-299.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.03.002

Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J. (1984). Classification and regression trees. Belmont, CA, USA:
Wadsworth International Group.

Brizuela, B. M. (2004). Mathematical development in young children: Exploring notations. New York, NY, USA: Teachers
College Press.

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. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.01.016

Chu, F. W., vanMarle, K., & Geary, D. C. (2015). Early numerical foundations of young children’s mathematical
development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 132, 205-212. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2015.01.006

Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2008). Experimental evaluation of the effects of a research-based preschool mathematics
curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 443-494. doi:10.3102/0002831207312908

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
CART Analysis Preschool Math 384

Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bryant, J. D. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention:
A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394-409.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.394

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, 48-55. doi:10.1016/j.tine.2013.06.001

Dehaene, S. (2011). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.

Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., . . . Japel, C. (2007). School
readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428-1446. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428

Evan, A., Gray, T., & Olchefske, J. (2006). The gateway to student success in mathematics and science. Washington, DC,
USA: American Institutes for Research.

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.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2014.01.013

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. (2012). The early prevention of mathematics difficulty: Its power and limitations.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 257-269. doi:10.1177/0022219412442167

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, 136-148. doi:10.1111/desc.12013

Fuhs, M. W., Nesbitt, K. T., Farran, D. C., & Dong, N. (2014). Longitudinal associations between executive functioning and
academic skills across content areas. Developmental Psychology, 50, 1698-1709. doi:10.1037/a0036633

Geary, D. C. (1994). Children’s mathematical development: Research and practical applications. Washington, DC, USA:
American Psychological Association.

Geary, D. C. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 4-15.
doi:10.1177/00222194040370010201

Geary, D. C. (2005). The origin of mind: Evolution of brain, cognition, and general intelligence. Washington, DC, USA:
American Psychological Association.

Geary, D. C., & Moore, A. M. (2016). Cognitive and brain systems underlying early mathematical development. In M.
Cappelletti & W. Fias (Eds.), Progress in brain research: The mathematical brain across the lifespan (Vol. 227, pp.
75-103). doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2016.03.008

Geary, D. C., & vanMarle, K. (2016). Young children’s core symbolic and nonsymbolic quantitative knowledge in the
prediction of later mathematics achievement. Developmental Psychology, 52, 2130-2144. doi:10.1037/dev0000214

Georgiou, G. K., Tziraki, N., Manolitsis, G., & Fella, A. (2013). Is rapid automatized naming related to reading and
mathematics for the same reason(s)? A follow-up study from kindergarten to grade 1. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 115, 481-496. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.01.004

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
Purpura, Day, Napoli, & Hart 385

Gerstadt, C. L., Hong, Y. J., & Diamond, A. (1994). The relationship between cognition and action: Performance of children
3 1/2 -7 years old on a Stroop-like day-night task. Cognition, 53, 129-153. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)90068-X

Göbel, S. M., Watson, S. E., Lervåg, A., & Hulme, C. (2014). Children’s arithmetic development: It is number knowledge, not
approximate number sense, that counts. Psychological Science, 25, 789-798. doi:10.1177/0956797613516471

Gruenewald, T. L., Mroczek, D. K., Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Diverse pathways to positive and negative affect in
adulthood and later life: An integrative approach using recursive partitioning. Developmental Psychology, 44, 330-343.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.330

Gruenewald, T. L., Seeman, T. E., Ryff, C. D., Karlamangla, A. S., & Singer, B. H. (2006). Combinations of biomarkers
predictive of later life mortality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103,
14158-14163. doi:10.1073/pnas.0606215103

Halberda, J., Mazzocco, M., & Feigenson, L. (2008). Individual differences in nonverbal number acuity predict maths
achievement. Nature, 455, 665-668. doi:10.1038/nature07246

Hanich, L. B., Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., & Dick, J. (2001). Performance across different areas of mathematical cognition in
children with learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 615-626. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.615

Hecht, S. A., Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (2001). The relations between phonological processing
abilities and emerging individual differences in mathematical computational skills: A longitudinal study from second to
fifth grade. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79, 192-227. doi:10.1006/jecp.2000.2586

Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied logistic regression. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.

Inglis, M., Attridge, N., Batchelor, S., & Gilmore, C. (2011). Non-verbal number acuity correlates with symbolic mathematics
achievement: But only in children. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 1222-1229. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0154-1

Jordan, N. C., & Hanich, L. B. (2000). Mathematical thinking in second-grade children with different forms of LD. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 33, 567-578. doi:10.1177/002221940003300605

Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., & Hanich, L. B. (2002). Achievement growth in children with learning difficulties in mathematics:
Findings of a two-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 586-597.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.586

Koon, S., Petscher, Y., & Foorman, B. R. (2014). Using evidence-based decision trees instead of formulas to identify at-risk
readers (REL 2014–036). Washington, DC, USA: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast.
Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

Koponen, T., Aunola, K., Ahonen, T., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2007). Cognitive predictors of single-digit and procedural calculation
skills and their covariation with reading skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 97, 220-241.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.03.001

Koponen, T., Salmi, P., Eklund, K., & Aro, T. (2013). Counting and RAN: Predictors of arithmetic calculation and reading
fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 162-175. doi:10.1037/a0029285

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
CART Analysis Preschool Math 386

Krajewski, K., & Schneider, W. (2009). Early development of quantity to number-word linkage as a precursor of
mathematical school achievement and mathematical difficulties: Findings from a four-year longitudinal study. Learning
and Instruction, 19, 513-526. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.10.002

Lachenbruch, P. A. (1975). Discriminant analysis. New York, NY, USA: Hafner.

Lan, X., Legare, C. H., Ponitz, C. C., Su, L., & Morrison, F. J. (2011). Investigating the links betweeen the subcomponents of
executive function and academic achievement: A cross-cultural analysis of Chinese and American preschoolers. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 677-692. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.11.001

Landerl, K., Bevan, A., & Butterworth, B. (2004). Developmental dyscalculia and basic numerical capacities: A study of 8-9-
year-old students. Cognition, 93, 99-125. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2003.11.004

LeFevre, J.-A., Fast, L., Skwarchuk, S.-L., Smith-Chant, B. L., Bisanz, J., Kamawar, D., & Penner-Wilger, M. (2010).
Pathways to mathematics: Longitudinal predictors of performance. Child Development, 81, 1753-1767.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01508.x

Lehto, J. E., Juujaarvi, P., Kooistra, L., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Dimensions of executive function: Evidence from children.
British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 59-80. doi:10.1348/026151003321164627

Leibovich, T., & Ansari, D. (2016). The symbol-grounding problem in numerical cognition: A review of theory, evidence, and
outstanding questions. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 12-23. doi:10.1037/cep0000070

Levine, S. C., Suriyakham, L. W., Rowe, M. L., Huttenlocher, J., & Gunderson, E. A. (2010). What counts in the
development of young children’s number knowledge? Developmental Psychology, 46, 1309-1319.
doi:10.1037/a0019671

Libertus, M. E., Feigenson, L., & Halberda, J. (2013). Numerical approximation abilities correlate with and predict informal
but not formal mathematics abilities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116, 829-838.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.08.003

Lonigan, C. J., Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (2007). Test of preschool early literacy. Austin, TX, USA:
Pro-Ed.

Mazzocco, M. M. M., Feigenson, L., & Halberda, J. (2011). Impaired acuity of the approximate number system underlies
mathematical learning disability (Dyscalculia): Impaired numerical acuity contributes to MLD. Child Development, 82,
1224-1237. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01608.x

Mazzocco, M. M., & Myers, G. F. (2003). Complexities in identifying and defining mathematics learning disability in the
primary school-age years. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 218-253. doi:10.1007/s11881-003-0011-7

McClelland, M. M., Acock, A. C., & Morrison, F. J. (2006). The impact of kindergarten learning-related skills on academic
trajectories at the end of elementary school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 471-490.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.09.003

McClelland, M. M., & Cameron, C. E. (2012). Self-regulation in early childhood: Improving conceptual clarity and developing
ecologically valid measures. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 136-142. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00191.x

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
Purpura, Day, Napoli, & Hart 387

McClelland, M. M., Cameron, C. E., Connor, C. M., Farris, C. L., Jewkes, A. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2007). Links between
behavioral regulation and preschoolers’ literacy, vocabulary and math skills. Developmental Psychology, 43, 947-959.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.947

McClelland, M. M., Cameron, C. E., Duncan, R., Bowles, R. P., Acock, A. C., Miao, A., . . . Pratt, M. E. (2014). Predictors of
early growth in academic achievement: The Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders task. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 599.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00599

McGregor, E. (1994). Economic development and public education: Strategies and standards. Educational Policy, 8,
252-271. doi:10.1177/0895904894008003001

Merkley, R., & Ansari, D. (2016). Why numerical symbols count in the development of mathematical skills: Evidence from
brain and behavior. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 10, 14-20. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.04.006

Michalczyk, K., Krajewski, K., Prebler, A.-L., & Hasselhorn, M. (2013). The relationships between quantity-number
competencies, working memory, and phonological awareness in 5- and 6-year-olds. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 31, 408-424. doi:10.1111/bjdp.12016

Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of
executive functions and their contributions to complex ‘frontal lobe’ tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive
Psychology, 41, 49-100. doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734

Mou, Y., & vanMarle, K. (2014). Two core systems of numerical representation in infants. Developmental Review, 34, 1-25.
doi:10.1016/j.dr.2013.11.001

Neumann, M. M., Hood, M., Ford, R. M., & Neumann, D. L. (2013). Letter and numeral identification: Their relationship with
early literacy and numeracy skills. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21, 489-501.
doi:10.1080/1350293X.2013.845438

Piasta, S. B., Pelatti, C. Y., & Miller, H. L. (2014). Mathematics and science learning opportunities in the preschool
classrooms. Early Education and Development, 25, 445-468. doi:10.1080/10409289.2013.817753

Piazza, M. (2010). Neurocognitive start-up tools for symbolic number representations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14,
542-551. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.008

Piazza, M., Facoetti, A., Trussardi, A. N., Berteletti, I., Conte, S., Lucangeli, D., . . . Zorzi, M. (2010). Developmental
trajectory of number acuity reveals a severe impairment in developmental dyscalculia. Cognition, 116, 33-41.
doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.012

Plomin, R., & Kovas, Y. (2005). Generalist genes and learning disabilities. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 592-617.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.592

Ponitz, C. C., McClelland, M. M., Matthews, S. S., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). A structured observation of behavioral self-
regulation and its contribution to kindergarten outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 45, 605-619.
doi:10.1037/a0015365

Praet, M., Titeca, D., Ceulemans, A., & Desoete, A. (2013). Language in the prediction of arithmetics in kindergarten and
grade 1. Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 90-96. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.07.003

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
CART Analysis Preschool Math 388

Purpura, D. J., & Logan, J. A. (2015). The nonlinear relations of the approximate number system and mathematical
language to early mathematics development. Developmental Psychology, 51, 1717-1724. doi:10.1037/dev0000055

Purpura, D. J., & Napoli, A. R. (2015). Early numeracy and literacy: Untangling the relation between specific components.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 17, 197-218. doi:10.1080/10986065.2015.1016817

Purpura, D. J., & Reid, E. E. (2016). Mathematics and language: Individual and group differences in mathematical language
skills in young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 259-268. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.12.020

Purpura, D. J., Baroody, A. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2013). The transition from informal to formal mathematical knowledge:
Mediation by numeral knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 453-464. doi:10.1037/a0031753

Purpura, D. J., Hume, L., Sims, D., & Lonigan, C. J. (2011). Early literacy and early numeracy: The value of including early
literacy skills in the prediction of numeracy development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110, 647-658.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2011.07.004

Purpura, D. J., Napoli, A. R., Wehrspann, E. A., & Gold, Z. S. (2017). Causal connections between mathematical language
and mathematical knowledge: A dialogic reading intervention. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10,
116-137. doi:10.1080/19345747.2016.1204639

Purpura, D. J., Reid, E. E., Eiland, M. D., & Baroody, A. J. (2015). Using a brief preschool early numeracy skills screener to
identify young children with mathematics difficulties. School Psychology Review, 44, 41-59.
doi:10.17105/SPR44-1.41-59

Purpura, D. J., Schmitt, S. A., & Ganley, C. M. (2017). Foundations of mathematics and literacy: The role of executive
functioning components. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 153, 15-34. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2016.08.010

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, 110-122.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.005

Rousselle, L., & Noel, M.-P. (2007). Basic numerical skills in children with mathematics learning disabilities: A comparison of
symbolic vs non-symbolic number magnitude processing. Cognition, 102, 361-395. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2006.01.005

Schenke, K., Rutherford, T., Lam, A. C., & Bailey, D. H. (2016). Construct confounding among predictors of mathematics
achievement. AERA Open, 2. doi:10.1177/2332858416648930

Schmitt, S. A., McClelland, M. M., Tominey, S. L., & Acock, A. C. (2015). Strengthening school readiness for Head Start
children: Evaluation of a self-regulation intervention. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 30, 20-31.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.08.001

Schmitt, S. A., Pratt, M. E., & McClelland, M. M. (2014). Examining the validity of behavioral self-regulation tools in
predicting preschoolers’ academic achievement. Early Education and Development, 25, 641-660.
doi:10.1080/10409289.2014.850397

Silver, C. H., Pennett, D.-L., Black, J. L., Fair, G. W., & Balise, R. R. (1999). Stability of arithmetic disability subtypes.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 108-119. doi:10.1177/002221949903200202

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
Purpura, Day, Napoli, & Hart 389

Simmons, F., Singleton, C., & Horne, J. (2008). Brief report—Phonological awareness and visual-spatial sketchpad
functioning predict early arithmetic attainment: Evidence from a longitudinal study. The European Journal of Cognitive
Psychology, 20, 711-722. doi:10.1080/09541440701614922

Speybroeck, N. (2012). Classification and regression trees. International Journal of Public Health, 57, 243-246.
doi:10.1007/s00038-011-0315-z

Starkey, P., Klein, A., & Wakeley, A. (2004). Enhancing young children’s mathematical knowledge through a pre-
kindergarten mathematics intervention. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 99-120.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.01.002

Stevenson, H. W., Lee, S., Chen, C., Lummis, M., Stigler, J., Fan, L., & Ge, F. (1990). Mathematics achievement of children
in China and the United States. Child Development, 61, 1053-1066. doi:10.2307/1130875

Strobl, C., Malley, J., & Tutz, G. (2009). An introduction to recursive partitioning: Rationale, application, and characteristics
of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychological Methods, 14, 323-348.
doi:10.1037/a0016973

Swanson, H. L., & Jerman, O. (2006). Math disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the literature. Review of Educational
Research, 76, 249-274. doi:10.3102/00346543076002249

Toll, S. W. M., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2014a). Explaining numeracy development in weak performing kindergartners. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 124, 97-111. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2014.02.001

Toll, S. W. M., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2014b). The developmental relationship between language and low early numeracy skills
throughout kindergarten. Exceptional Children, 81, 64-78. doi:10.1177/0014402914532233

Trick, L. M., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1994). Why are small and large numbers enumerated differently? A limited-capacity
preattentive stage in vision. Psychological Review, 101, 80-102. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.1.80

Truckenmiller, A., Petscher, Y., Gaughan, L., & Dwyer, T. (2016). Predicting mathematics outcomes with a reading screener
in grades 3-8. (REL 2016-180). Washington, DC, USA: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast.
Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

vanMarle, K., Chu, F. W., Mou, Y., Seok, J. H., Rouder, J., & Geary, D. C. (2016). Attaching meaning to the number words:
Contributions of the object tracking and approximate number systems. Developmental Science. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1111/desc.12495

Vukovic, R. K., & Lesaux, N. K. (2013a). The language of mathematics: Investigating the ways language counts for
children’s mathematical development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115, 227-244.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.02.002

Vukovic, R. K., & Lesaux, N. K. (2013b). The relationship between linguistic skills and arithmetic knowledge. Learning and
Individual Differences, 23, 87-91. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.007

Watson, S. M., & Gable, R. A. (2013). Unraveling the complex nature of mathematics learning disability implications for
research and practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36, 178-187. doi:10.1177/0731948712461489

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
CART Analysis Preschool Math 390

Zelazo, P. D. (2006). The Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS): A method for assessing executive function in children.
Nature Protocols, 1, 297-301. doi:10.1038/nprot.2006.46

Appendix: Visuals of Trees

Figure A.1. Younger children – Tree 1.

Figure A.2. Younger children – Tree 2.

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
Purpura, Day, Napoli, & Hart 391

Figure A.3. Younger children – Tree 3.

Figure A.4. Younger children – Tree 4.

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
CART Analysis Preschool Math 392

Figure A.5. Younger children – Tree 5.

Figure A.6. Younger children – Tree 6.

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
Purpura, Day, Napoli, & Hart 393

Figure A.7. Younger children – Tree 7.

Figure A.8. Younger children – Tree 8.

Figure A.9. Younger children – Tree 9.

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
CART Analysis Preschool Math 394

Figure A.10. Older children – Tree 1.

Figure A.11. Older children – Tree 2.

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
Purpura, Day, Napoli, & Hart 395

Figure A.12. Older children – Tree 3.

Figure A.13. Older children – Tree 4.

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
CART Analysis Preschool Math 396

Figure A.14. Older children – Tree 5.

Figure A.15. Older children – Tree 6.

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
Purpura, Day, Napoli, & Hart 397

Figure A.16. Older children – Tree 7.

Figure A.17. Older children – Tree 8.

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
CART Analysis Preschool Math 398

Figure A.18. Older children – Tree 9.

Figure A.19. Older children – Tree 10.

Journal of Numerical Cognition

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53
Purpura, Day, Napoli, & Hart 399

Figure A.20. Older children – Tree 11.

Figure A.21. Older children – Tree 12.

Journal of Numerical Cognition PsychOpen is a publishing service by Leibniz Institute

2017, Vol. 3(2), 365–399 for Psychology Information (ZPID), Trier, Germany.
doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53 www.zpid.de/en