See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/353938612

Relations among Phonological Processing Skills and Mathematics in Children:

A Meta-analysis

Article  in  Journal of Educational Psychology · August 2021

DOI: 10.1037/edu0000710

CITATIONS READS

12 785

9 authors, including:

Xiujie Yang Mengge Yan

Beijing Normal University The Chinese University of Hong Kong
52 PUBLICATIONS   378 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   47 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Peng Peng
University of Texas at Austin
97 PUBLICATIONS   2,824 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SRCD 2021 - Paper Symposium: Leveraging Innovative Methods in Meta-Analysis to Advance Developmental Theory View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Xiujie Yang on 01 November 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Educational Psychology
Relations Among Phonological Processing Skills and Mathematics in
Children: A Meta-Analysis
Xiujie Yang, Mengge Yan, Yijun Ruan, Serena Yuk Yee Ku, Jason Chor Ming Lo, Peng Peng, and Catherine McBride
Online First Publication, October 28, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000710

CITATION
Yang, X., Yan, M., Ruan, Y., Ku, S. Y. Y., Lo, J. C. M., Peng, P., & McBride, C. (2021, October 28). Relations Among
Phonological Processing Skills and Mathematics in Children: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance
online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000710
 Journal of Educational Psychology
© 2021 American Psychological Association
ISSN: 0022-0663 https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000710

Relations Among Phonological Processing Skills and Mathematics in

Children: A Meta-Analysis

Xiujie Yang1, Mengge Yan2, Yijun Ruan2, Serena Yuk Yee Ku2, Jason Chor Ming Lo3, Peng Peng4,
and Catherine McBride2
1
Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University
2
Department of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
3
Department of Pediatrics, Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
4
Department of Special Education, University of Texas at Austin
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

The present study presents a meta-analysis of the relations between phonological processing abilities
and different mathematics subskills. Using a random-effects model with 94 studies (135 unique samples,
826 effect sizes), the present meta-analysis revealed a significant general association between phonolog-
ical processing and mathematics (average r = .33, p , .001, 95% CI [.30, .36]). Phonological awareness
(PA) and rapid automatized naming (RAN) showed stronger correlations with mathematics than phono-
logical memory (PM) did. The correlations among phonological processing abilities and mathematics
skills were generally stronger among younger children than among older children. PA and PM mani-
fested larger effect sizes when correlated with mathematics accuracy than with mathematics fluency,
whereas RAN yielded larger effect sizes when associated with mathematics fluency than with mathe-
matics accuracy. Metastructural equation modeling results revealed that, after statistically controlling for
domain-general abilities (i.e., vocabulary knowledge, executive functioning, and nonverbal intelligence),
phonological processing still made a unique contribution to different mathematics subskills (bs = .20

.54). These results suggest that children may use phonological processing abilities as one mechanism
through which to represent, manipulate, and retrieve mathematics knowledge.

Educational Impact and Implications Statement

Results of this meta-analysis revealed that the strengths of the relations of phonological processing
skills to mathematics abilities were influenced by the nature of the phonological processing compo-
nents, the types of mathematics skills, and children’s own characteristics. With general vocabulary
knowledge, nonverbal IQ, and executive functioning statistically controlled, phonological processing
skills indexed with phonological awareness (PA), Rapid automatized naming (RAN), and phonological
memory (PM) were uniquely associated with mathematics subskills. Findings suggest that early PA
and RAN abilities in particular may be good early indicators of mathematics performance. In order for
children to learn to recognize numerical information, count, and reason about mathematical associa-
tions, phonological processing is necessary. One possible implication of these results is that early train-
ing in recognition and manipulation of speech sounds (PA), as well as RAN, representing fluent
phonological access to symbols, may facilitate early mathematics learning. Overall, findings highlight
the importance of phonological processing in the development of mathematics in young children.

Keywords: phonological awareness, phonological memory, rapid automatized naming, mathematics,

meta-analysis

Supplemental materials: https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000710.supp

My coauthors and I do not have any interests that might be interpreted to

Xiujie Yang https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8866-0203
Yijun Ruan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0042-9881
Jason Chor Ming Lo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8428-1086
This study was funded by the Research Grants Council of the Hong
Kong Special Administration Region (CUHK8/CRF/13G & C4054-17W),
by an internal grant entitled “Reading Development in Chinese and in
English: Genetics and Neuroscience Correlates” (4930703) from the
Chinese University of Hong Kong to Catherine McBride, and by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (32000757) to Xiujie Yang.
influence the research, and APA ethical standards were followed in the
conduct of the study. With the submission of this article I would like to
undertake that this article has not been published elsewhere, accepted for
publication elsewhere, or under editorial review for publication elsewhere.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Xiujie
Yang, Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, No. 19,
Xinjiekouwai Street, Haidian District, Beijing 100875, P.R. China. Email:
amyyang@bnu.edu.cn

1
 2 YANG ET AL.
Phonological processing refers to the use of the sound structure
of language to process written and oral information (Liberman et
al., 1974; Mann & Liberman, 1984; McBride-Chang & Ho, 2000;
Wagner, 1986; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). It includes three com-
ponents, namely, phonological awareness (hereafter, PA), rapid
automatized naming (hereafter, RAN), and phonological memory
(hereafter, PM; Turkeltaub et al., 2003; Wagner et al., 1987, 1994;
Wagner & Torgesen, 1987).
In the past decades, researchers have suggested various roles of
phonological processing abilities in accounting for mathematics
skills (e.g., Hecht et al., 2001; Simmons & Singleton, 2008). For
example, in the pathway model by LeFevre et al. (2010), phono-
logical processing skills are important components of the linguistic
framework that contributes to early mathematics development,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
even when reading abilities are statistically controlled for (De
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Smedt et al., 2010; Yang & McBride, 2020). This is likely due to
the fact that the development of mathematics knowledge relies
highly on the encoding and maintenance of accurate phonological
representations of numbers, terms, and operators (Krajewski &
Schneider, 2009; Peng et al., 2020). Mathematics knowledge also
highly relies on the automaticity of arithmetic-fact retrieval (Hecht
et al., 2001) such that arithmetic problem solving demands the re-
trieval of phonological forms corresponding to the number of
words and operation facts stored in long-term memory (De Smedt
et al., 2010; Geary, 1995; Geary et al., 1993). Not surprisingly,
weak phonological representations can impede children’s abilities
to solve mathematics problems, especially those involving the
manipulations of number verbal codes (Simmons & Singleton,
2008).
Koponen et al. (2017) reviewed the relationship between one of
the phonological components, RAN, and mathematics. They found
a significant association between RAN and mathematics (r = .37;
95% CI [.33, .42], and RAN had a stronger correlation with mathe-
matics fluency tasks than with mathematics accuracy tasks. A
meta-analysis by Friso-Van den Bos et al. (2013) demonstrated a
medium-sized significant correlation between PM and a number of
mathematics domains, with no distinction between subcomponents
within PM (e.g., digit PM, and nondigit PM). However, these stud-
ies only involved one or two of the phonological processing skills,
without systematically comparing each phonological processing
regarding their relations to various mathematics skills. Peng et al.
(2020) investigated the relation between language and mathemat-
ics, in which language was indexed with but not limited to phono-
logical processing and comprehensive language. And it is yet to be
determined whether phonological processing correlate to mathe-
matics after strictly controlling for more domain-general abilities
such as nonverbal intelligence, executive functioning, and vocabu-
lary knowledge. This was the goal of the present study.
Addressing these gaps is of theoretical and practical importance.
The aim of the study was to examine the comparative correlation
strengths between various phonological processing skills and differ-
ent mathematics skills; we intended to investigate material/domain-
specific effects by possibly differentiating subcomponents both
within RAN (digit RAN vs. nondigit RAN) and within PM (digit PM
vs. nondigit PM). We also wanted to examine whether phonological
processing is uniquely related to mathematics by systematically parti-
aling out the influence of nonverbal intelligence, executive function-
ing, and vocabulary knowledge, using a meta-analytic structural
equation modeling (MASEM) analysis. Theoretically, the findings
will allow us to validate the mechanism of phonological processing
abilities and their relations with the subskills of mathematics. Practi-
cally, phonological processing skills emerge before children enter
school, and early assessments of these skills might facilitate identifi-
cation of children at risk of academic failure. For example, research-
ers may rely on nondigit RAN and nondigit PM as predictors of
mathematics performance even before children go to school and
become familiar with digits. Moreover, understanding which phono-
logical processing component(s) is/are essential for different mathe-
matics abilities could help develop interventions incorporating
phonological processing for children with or without mathematics
disabilities.
Phonological Awareness
The first of these bodies of research centers on PA, which is
awareness of phonology, or the sound structure of one’s language
(McBride, 2016). How PA is measured varies across ages and lan-
guages. This is because different aspects of PA are influenced by
age as well as educational experiences. For instance, tone discrimi-
nation and syllable deletion can be measured even in kindergarten,
while phoneme deletion cannot be measured until primary school
in Chinese children (Shu et al., 2008). Similarly, syllable-level
awareness seems to emerge naturally with development in English,
but phoneme-level awareness is at least partly attributable to liter-
acy education (Cho & McBride-Chang, 2005; Morrison et al.,
1995). The effect of PA on arithmetic remains uncertain given
some controversial results (e.g., Amland et al., 2021; Cirino et al.,
2018; De Smedt et al., 2010). For example, Amland et al. (2021)
revealed that phonological awareness failed to explain the devel-
opment of arithmetic from kindergarten to first grade. De Smedt
and Boets (2010) investigated whether fact retrieval difficulties in
arithmetic could be explained by individual differences in the three
classic areas of phonological processing, that is, PA, RAN, and
PM, and found that phonological processing, particularly PA, was
related to arithmetic fact retrieval.
Rapid Automatized Naming
The second body of phonological processing research focuses
on RAN, which is defined as rate of access to phonological infor-
mation stored in long-term memory (Wagner & Torgesen, 1987).
RAN is typically measured by timing how quickly individuals can
name symbol stimuli, both digits and/or nondigits, including colors,
objects, or letters. Recent studies have argued that RAN measured
using these stimuli operates at the grapho-phonemic, grapho-syl-
labic, and lexical reading levels (Moll et al., 2009; Onochie-Quin-
tanilla et al., 2019). One study demonstrated that RAN, rather
than PA, was uniquely associated when predicting arithmetic
skills of primary school children who tended to employ fact re-
trieval strategies (Yang et al., 2019). Other studies have proposed
that RAN is related to the efficient retrieval of phonological name
codes, counting sequencing, and arithmetic facts (Koponen et al.,
2016; Peng et al., 2020). Articulation rates for number words are
expected to strongly influence mathematic performance that
involves number counting. For example, counting strategies might
be used during simple arithmetic problem solving (Geary, 1995;
Geary et al., 1993). Therefore, RAN should be important for
mathematics abilities among children across ages, since retrieving
 PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSING SKILLS AND MATHEMATICS
phonological verbal codes usually contributes to different kinds of
mathematics, including number identification, counting, and the
speed of mathematics problem solving (Koponen et al., 2017).
Such a retrieval role of RAN is critical in developing/learning
advanced mathematics skills since retrieval can help to optimize
cognitive/language allocation during advanced mathematics per-
formance (e.g., slow retrieval can impede the efficient cognitive
processing during mathematics performance, Peng et al., 2020);
this is in line with many previous findings in which RAN corre-
lates with early numeracy knowledge (e.g., counting, number
knowledge) and simple arithmetic (e.g., addition and subtraction)
independently (Bull & Johnston, 1997; Chard et al., 2005). In con-
trast, Cirino et al. (2018) found PA and RAN to be predictive of
reading-related abilities, rather than calculation ability, when four
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
math-specific predictors, three reading-specific predictors, and
four domain-general predictors were involved simultaneously to
explain variability in reading and math.
Phonological Memory
The third body of phonological processing research focuses on
PM. Wagner et al. (1999) have proposed that PM comprises short-
term phonological storage that holds information in the phonologi-
cal form and a rehearsal process that maintains decaying informa-
tion in the phonological store. PM is usually indexed by the
number of stimuli to be recalled within a string (i.e., the memory
span) of digits (e.g., St. Clair-Thompson, 2010), and/or nondigits,
including letters (e.g., Li & Lewandowsky, 1995), words (e.g.,
Bireta et al., 2010), or nonwords (Hecht et al., 2001). In the tasks,
PM usually reflects the storage of unfamiliar sound patterns and
the capacity to retain the sequence of phonological information
that is related to mathematics. Those studies that have made use of
such span tasks have referred to them by different names, includ-
ing but not limited to phonological loop (Baddeley et al., 1998;
Bull et al., 2008) and verbal short-term memory (STM) span (Swan-
son & Kim, 2007).
Several studies have reported the association of PM with read-
ing performance among preschoolers (Noël, 2009), kindergarten-
ers (Toll & Van Luit, 2013), and school-age children (de Jong &
van der Leij, 1999; Hecht et al., 2001; Noel et al., 2004; Rasmus-
sen & Bisanz, 2005; Siegel & Linder, 1984). But there is no clear
indication as to whether PM uniquely contributes to mathematics,
because it has been found to overlap strongly with the other two
phonological skills (Hecht et al., 2001; Yang & McBride, 2020).
Mathematics Subskills in Children
How do young children develop mathematics skills? Krajewski
and Schneider (2008) have proposed that mathematics is acquired
through the understanding of quantity-number word linkage. Chil-
dren are born with the ability to discriminate quantities (or what
we sometimes refer to as number sense), which provides the foun-
dation for developing higher-level number concepts (Butterworth,
2005; Dehaene, 1992). With the acquisition of language, children
start to learn to recite number words and to obtain knowledge of
exact number-word sequences. They begin to acquire the ability to
link quantities with number words switching from a relatively
imprecise perspective (20 = 22 = “much”) to a more precise one
(20 = “twenty”). With development, children gain knowledge
3
concerning the relations and manipulations between different nu-
merical quantities, such as composition and decomposition of
numbers. Accordingly, children learn mathematics in different
forms, and mathematics understanding includes complicated prob-
lems of various types (Hecht et al., 2001). The Common Core
State Standards Initiative provides essential components of mathe-
matics instruction across grades K–12 in the United States (National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief
State School Officers, 2010), and researchers have conceptualized
these standards as comprising different mathematics subskills,
including basic number knowledge, calculation, word problem
solving, geometry, and algebra (Peng et al., 2016; Peng et al.,
2019). At the primary grades, the major curricular focus is con-
ceptualized in three domains across cultures: understanding num-
ber, calculations, and word problems (Fuchs et al., 2014; also
refer to the Program for International Student Assessment con-
ducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Devel-
opment, [OECD, 2014]).
Basic number knowledge is defined as the knowledge of word
counting, number recognition, cardinality, or ordinality (Östergren
& Träff, 2013; Peng et al., 2016). It taps the symbolic knowledge
of numerosity, nonsymbolic knowledge of quantity, number
sequences, and relations between numbers. Basic number knowl-
edge is usually assessed with various abilities, including counting
ability, number/quantity comparison competence, number identifi-
cation knowledge, cardinality, or number line estimation (Peng et
al., 2016). Calculation at young ages refers to the abilities of man-
aging addition (e.g., 2 þ 12), subtraction (e.g., 30 – 1), multiplica-
tion (e.g., 12 3 40), and division (e.g., 100  20). Children are
required to answer the questions using digits. Researchers usually
assess this skill using some standardized measures, such as the
Woodcock-Johnson-Calculation test (Woodcock et al., 2001),
CBM-Calculation (Fuchs et al., 1990), or WRAT-4-Math (Wilkin-
son & Robertson, 2006). Word problem solving is the ability to
comprehend a mathematics narrative, extract an arithmetic prob-
lem from the narrative, and solve it. Word problem solving is a
complicated process that requires not only arithmetic competence
but also comprehension abilities to understand the problem con-
struct (Fuchs et al., 2006, 2015; Peng et al., 2016). Types of math-
ematics skills should be taken into consideration when examining
the phonological processing-mathematics relation. For the present
meta-analysis, we confined our exploration to children from kin-
dergarten to primary school and, therefore, three kinds of mathe-
matics that are acquired at this period, including basic number
knowledge, calculation, and word problem solving (Fuchs et al.,
2014; Peng et al., 2016).
From among our three target mathematics subskills, word prob-
lem solving is the most difficult because it requires a higher over-
all cognitive workload (Peng et al., 2016). According to the
cognitive load theory, the learning of complex cognitive tasks
involves a number of interactive information elements that need to
be processed simultaneously before meaningful learning can occur
(Paas et al., 2010). Word problems might generally show the
strongest relations with phonological processing, as they reflect
more shared cognitive processes. Furthermore, researchers have
shown that mathematics skills that are solved using fact retrieval
strategies tend to be correlated with phonological processing, par-
ticularly PA (De Smedt et al., 2010), and RAN (Koponen et al.,
2017). For instance, basic number knowledge appears to be
 4 YANG ET AL.
relatively straightforward procedurally, with such facts often being
directly retrieved from long-term memory; basic number knowl-
edge has been associated with both PA (Krajewski & Schneider,
2009) and RAN (Swanson & Kim, 2007). Moreover, there is a
neural overlap between arithmetic problem solving using the fact
retrieval strategy and PA in the left-temporo-parietal areas (Dehaene
et al., 2003; Grabner et al.,2009; Pugh et al., 2001; Schlaggar &
McCandliss, 2007; Vigneau et al., 2006). Thus, both basic number
knowledge and word problem solving appear to be associated with
PA and RAN. Although children usually solve basic number knowl-
edge problems using fact retrieval strategies, while solving other
types of mathematics calculation problems with procedural strat-
egies (Peng et al., 2017), sometimes strategy use depends partly on
the difficulty levels of the problems, on problem types, and on how
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
experienced children are in mathematics problem solving (De Smedt
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
et al., 2010).
In addition, accuracy and fluency of mathematics should both
be considered in understanding the association between phonolog-
ical processing and mathematics. Researchers have argued that the
ability to fluently retrieve verbal codes and number facts stored in
long-term memory should be critical to the speed of solving math-
ematics problems (Koponen et al., 2007, 2017). Indeed, many pre-
vious studies have also shown that fluency in simple- and
multidigit calculation are highly related to the speed of rapid nam-
ing (Georgiou et al., 2013; Koponen et al., 2016). As showed by
Koponen et al. (2017), RAN tends to be more strongly linked to
math fluency than to math accuracy. In contrast, PA and PM tasks
typically require accuracy and do not directly make use of fluency.
For example, researchers often assess PA using untimed tasks of
phonological analysis and phonological synthesis (Hecht et al.,
2001; Perfetti et al., 1981), and assess PM with digit span tests
(Fuchs et al., 2005), such tasks reflect skills of accuracy rather
than fluency. However, more evidence is required to determine
how strongly PA and PM correlate with mathematics fluency as
well as with mathematics accuracy.
Sample Characteristics
Importantly, various sample characteristics serve as moderators
of the phonological processing-mathematics relationship. These
include children’s ages, grades, and whether children develop atypi-
cally or typically. Researchers have speculated that PA appears to be
more important for mathematics development when children are rel-
atively young, before obtaining formal instruction in mathematics
(Krajewski & Schneider,2009). Krajewski and Schneider (2009) and
Koponen et al. (2013) reported associations between PA and young
children’s sequential counting skills. For calculation, Simmons and
Singleton (2008) found that PA could help with the representation
of number words in solving simple arithmetic problems among
young children ages 5 to 6 years old. In contrast, among older chil-
dren in upper primary grades, more mixed results on the relations of
PA and mathematics have been found. It is suggested that when chil-
dren progress in grades and calculate numbers of larger sizes, PA
seems to have a weaker but still meaningful association with mathe-
matics skills (e.g., De Smedt et al., 2010). Yet, when examining the
prediction of PA to children’s early numeracy and later mathematics
performance, Krajewski and Schneider (2009) found that PA signifi-
cantly predicted quantity-number competence when children were
around age 6 years old but failed to predict their mathematics
performance at around 9 years old. We anticipated that children of
younger ages and at lower grade levels would show the strongest
associations between phonological processing and mathematics.
The relations of phonological processing abilities with mathe-
matics between typically and atypically developing children is im-
portant to compare, given that children with learning disabilities
might have a limited-capacity of short-term storage (Geary, 1993).
In addition, most struggling learners tend to use less efficient
approaches for mathematics than direct retrieval, show weak flexi-
bility in problem-solving, and are less accurate in performing
mathematics algorithms (Zhang et al., 2014). Moreover, although
children with learning disabilities show deficits in the ability to
use retrieval-based processes (Geary et al., 2012), they rely more
on finger counting, and use more counting strategies during mathe-
matics problem solving (Geary, 1993), for which phonological
processing is also required (Noël, 2009; Zhang et al., 2014). Stud-
ies comparing children with learning disabilities and typically
developing children have revealed significant differences in pho-
nological processing abilities (Pelletier et al., 2001). Therefore,
sample type might be another moderator. We specifically focused
on three groups in the present study, namely, typically developing
children, children with mathematics difficulties, and high-achiev-
ing children. The criterion for classification into the disability
group was that children were identified by specialist agencies or the
local government. However, because there were no high-achieving
children identified in the databases, we did not focus further on this
group.
Covariates: Intelligence, Executive Functioning, and
Vocabulary
General ability might be an important covariate when investi-
gating the relations between domain-specific linguistic skills and
academic performance (Peng et al., 2019, 2020). The integration
of the Cattell-Horn Gf-Gc theory and Carroll’s three-stratum
theory (i.e., CHC theory) offers the most well-founded and reason-
able approach to understanding the structure of cognitive abilities
(Schneider & McGrew, 2018). Fluid intelligence (Gf, quantitative
reasoning, processing ability, adaptability to new environments or
novel problem solving) and crystallized intelligence (Gc, the accu-
mulation of general, procedural or declarative knowledge) are typi-
cally combined to represent general ability (Cattell, 1971; Schneider
& McGrew, 2018). In our analyses for the present study, vocabulary
knowledge (an important indicator in Gc) and nonverbal intelligence
and executive functioning (important indicators of Gf) were often
measured. Crucially, phonological processing tasks primarily focus
on speech sounds, rather than print or meaning, in a given language
(McBride, 2016). Nonverbal intelligence and executive functioning
are often confounded with phonological processing abilities in stud-
ies on the associations of phonological processing skills with mathe-
matics (Cirino et al., 2018; De Smedt et al., 2010).
The Present Study
Only a few meta-analyses (Koponen et al., 2017; Peng et al.,
2020) have tested the relations between one or more phonological
processing abilities with mathematics. None of these studies has
simultaneously included all three phonological processing skills in
relation to mathematics. Moderators of the correlations between
 PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSING SKILLS AND MATHEMATICS
phonological processing and mathematics, such as phonological
processing components, mathematics subtypes, and sample char-
acteristics, have not been examined. Moreover, it is essential to
statistically control the influences of general cognitive skills and
general language abilities in order to further investigate the unique
contributions of phonological processing abilities to mathematics
outcomes. The present study aimed to answer the following
research questions:
1. What are the relationships between phonological process-
ing abilities and mathematics? Based on previous find-
ings, it was anticipated that phonological processing
abilities would be significantly correlated with mathemat-
ics skills.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
2. What are the moderators of the correlations between pho-
nological processing and mathematics? We investigated
how different types of phonological processing may influ-
ence such relations across different types of mathematics
skills. Based on previous work, we expected that PA and
RAN would show stronger relations with mathematics
than would PM. Word problems were expected to be
associated with phonological processing abilities than
would calculation and basic number knowledge. We also
anticipated that their correlations would be generally
stronger among younger children than among older children.
3. How do relations between phonological processing abil-
ities and mathematics change when other general skills/
covariates are statistically controlled? In addition to vo-
cabulary knowledge, nonverbal intelligence, and execu-
tive functioning were included in the analysis model. We
expected that phonological processing as indexed with
PA, RAN, and PM measures would still have a significant
relationship with each mathematics subskill even when
these cognitive skills were statistically controlled.
Method
Data Collection
Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review
and Meta-Analysis protocols (Moher et al., 2009), a database
search of the Google Scholar, ERIC, PsycINFO, Medline, and
PubMed databases for research studies was conducted. We used
the earliest possible start date (1969) to September 2019. Titles,
abstracts, and keywords were searched with the following terms:
(“phonological processing” OR “phonological awareness” OR
“phonological memory” OR “RAN” OR “syllable awareness” OR
“phoneme awareness” OR “onset” OR “rime” OR “phonological
sensitivity” OR” sensitivity” OR “phonological STM” OR “short
term memory” OR “verbal memory” OR “memory span” OR
“memory” OR “digit naming” OR “object naming” OR “rapid
automatized naming” OR “rapid naming” OR “rapid serial nam-
ing” OR “naming speed”) AND (“math “OR “number” OR
“numeracy” OR “ANS” OR “counting” OR “calculation” “arithme-
tic” OR “arith*” OR “calcul*” OR “computation” OR “fraction”
OR “word problem” OR “problem solving” OR “problem-solving”).
5
“Number” represented” number knowledge” OR “number sense”
OR “number line estimation; “calcul” included “calculation” OR
“calculating.” In addition, we also searched unpublished literature
through ProQuest Dissertation and ResearchGate and contacted
researchers when their relevant studies were not available. As shown
in Figure 1, the initial database searching identified 24,400 records.
We removed duplicate articles for initial screening and ended up
with 21,514 records. Then, the authors, including one assistant pro-
fessor and two doctoral students in psychology, reviewed abstracts
of the articles and identified these studies for further full-text evalua-
tion. Afterward, 857 full-text articles were carefully assessed for eli-
gibility with the following specific criteria.
The specific criteria used to assess studies for eligibility and
inclusion were as follows:
1. To acquire the validated effect sizes, included studies had
to employ quantitative tasks measuring mathematics,
including basic number knowledge, calculation, or word
problem solving. We excluded 127 studies for not reach-
ing this inclusion criterion.
2. Included studies had to employ quantitative tasks measuring
phonological processing skills, including PA, RAN, or PM.
We excluded 201 studies for not meeting this criterion.
3. Studies had to have obtained at least one simple correla-
tion coefficient between phonological processing and
mathematics. We excluded 104 studies because there was
no measure of effect size available.
4. Studies had to focus on participants in kindergarten or
primary school, because this period represents among
the quickest developmental phases of both phonological
processing (Wagner et al., 1999; Wagner & Torgesen,
1987) and mathematics (Fuchs et al., 2005, 2010; Geary,
1993; Hecht et al., 2001) over time. We excluded 331
studies for not reaching this inclusion criterion.
Based on the above-mentioned criteria, 94 studies were included
in the current meta-analysis (see Appendix A in the supplemental
materials for study details).
Coding Procedure and Interrater Reliability
The three coders (the second, third, and fourth authors) agreed
upon all criteria for coding before any rater started to code the
included papers. Author and the published year were recoded as the
identifier, and then the following information was listed: sample
size, the effect size (Pearson’s r), types of phonological processing
(PA, RAN, PM), types of mathematics (basic number knowledge,
calculation, and/or word problem), indicators of mathematics (accu-
racy and/or fluency), mean ages, children’s grades (kindergarten,
lower grades at Grade 1 to Grade 3, higher grades from Grade 4 to
Grade 5), nonverbal intelligence, vocabulary knowledge, and exec-
utive functioning. Next, the three raters used the coding system to
conduct the final coding of all studies. The first author randomly
selected 30 papers from our databases, and independently coded the
moderators. The interrater agreement was calculated with the num-
ber of agreements divided by the number of agreements plus dis-
agreements. Results showed that the interrater agreement ranged
 6 YANG ET AL.
Figure 1
Flow Diagram for the Search and Inclusion of Studies
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
from 90% to 99% across types of phonological processing, types of
mathematics, and sample characteristics criteria.
Meta-Analytic Approach
The analyses were conducted using the effect size index Pear-
son’s r for all outcomes. The correlations between the phonologi-
cal processing measures and the mathematics outcomes, as well
as children’s characteristics (age, grade, groups) were analyzed.
Cohen (1988) provided guidelines for interpreting the magnitude
of a correlation. Specifically, r = .10, r = .30, and r = .50 were
recommended to be considered small, medium, and large in mag-
nitude, respectively. The metafor package, which provides a com-
prehensive collection of functions for conducting meta-analyses in
R (Viechtbauer, 2010), was used for constructing the funnel plots
and the following meta-analysis. The Egger’s test (Egger et al.,
1997; Sterne & Egger, 2005), using the standard error of the
observed outcomes as the predictor, was utilized to check for fun-
nel plot asymmetry. Specifically, the metafor package includes
functions for calculating various effect sizes for outcome meas-
ures, such as Fisher’s r-to-z-transformed correlation coefficients,
and allows the user to fit fixed-, random-, and mixed-effects mod-
els to these data. For nonindependent effect sizes or outcomes, the
package also provides a function for fitting multilevel/multivariate
random-effects models. The random effects robust standard error
estimation technique, which was developed by Hedges et al.
(2010), was used. Given that there existed several effect sizes per
study, the rma.mv function was used to fit suitable meta-analytic
multivariate/multilevel models so that the nonindependence in the
observed/true effects or outcomes could be accounted for (Kon-
stantopoulos, 2011).
Studentized residuals and Cook’s distances were used to exam-
ine whether studies were outliers and/or influential in the context
of the model (Viechtbauer & Cheung, 2010). Specifically, studies
with a studentized residual larger than the percentile of a standard
normal distribution were considered potential outliers (i.e., using a
Bonferroni correction with two-sided for studies included in the
meta-analysis). Studies with a Cook’s distance larger than the me-
dian plus six times the interquartile range of the Cook’s distances
are considered to be influential.
Furthermore, we carried out the subgroup analyses to examine
the relation between phonological processing and mathematics
with each moderator. Specifically, metaregression analyses were
conducted for the moderation effects of domain of phonological
processing, types of mathematics skills, and sample characteristics
on the associations between phonological processing and mathe-
matics. Given very limited numbers of studies targeting children
with special needs, various groups of children with different diffi-
culties, including those with learning disabilities, language delays,
or of lower intelligence, were grouped together in the atypical
sample in the current analysis. Dummy coded variables were created
to examine the comparisons among categorical variables (Cohen
et al., 2003).
Finally, we conducted the analysis to examine the unique asso-
ciations between phonological processing and mathematics after
controlling for general skills, using a two-stage meta-analytic struc-
tural equation modeling (metaSEM) approach (Cheung, 2014). We
 PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSING SKILLS AND MATHEMATICS 7

quantified the heterogeneity across study (e.g., different measure-
ment, sample, etc.) using I2 statistic (see Table 1). A random effects
model was selected to account for the heterogeneity. In the first
stage of the analysis, we used a multivariate method to combine cor-
relation matrices across all studies (see Table 1). Essentially, we ran
a meta-analysis on the entire correlation matrix between all variables
of interest. On average, each cell in this correlation matrix aggre-
gated 4,960 (range: 609–18,028) samples from 17 (range: 3–71)
studies. The mean sample size was 254 and the harmonic mean sam-
ple size was 119. In the second stage, we fitted a structural equation
model to the pooled correlation matrix (see Cheung & Chan, 2005;
Cheung & Hafdahl, 2016 for method details). We evaluated the
model fit in the second stage with the chi-square test, the confirma-
tory fit index (CFI), and the root mean square error of approximation
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
RAN, r = .35, 95% CI [.30, .39]; for digit RAN, r = .41, 95% CI
[.34, .47]; for nondigit RAN, r = .31, 95% CI [.26, .36]; for PM,
r = .28, 95% CI [.24, .31]; for digit PM, r = .27, 95% CI [.23, .32];
for nondigit PM, r = .28, 95% CI [.22, .33]. As shown in Table 3,
there were no significant differences between the relations of
mathematics with digit RAN or with nondigit RAN, either for digit
PM or nondigit PM. PA was more strongly related to mathematics
than PM, b = –.09, z = –9.22, p , .001, and RAN was more
strongly related to mathematics than PM, b = –.11, z = –9.96, p ,
.001. No significant difference was found across the relation of
mathematics with PA and that with RAN.
Moderation Effects of Types of Mathematics Skills

Concerning the relations between phonological processing abil-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

(RMSEA). Models with CFI . .95, and RMSEA , .08, are consid-
ered with a good fit (Kline, 2016). ities and different mathematics skills, we finally obtained 407 cor-
relations involving basic number knowledge, 258 correlations
involving calculation, and 148 correlations involving word prob-
Results
lems. The average correlations between each of the phonological
Through influence analyses, nine effect sizes were identified as out- processing skills and the three mathematics subskills were signifi-
liers and were ruled out before further analyses were carried out. The cant: for basic number knowledge, r = .30, 95% CI [.26, .33]; for
Egger’s tests demonstrated that the funnel plots showed reasonable calculation, r = .35, 95% CI [.31, .38]; for word problem, r = .35,
symmetries in all reported correlations, suggesting that there was little 95% CI [.30, .40]. Word problem and calculation were more
influence from the publication bias (all the p values for Egger’s tests strongly related to phonological processing than basic number
were above .32). Based on inclusion criteria, we included 94 studies knowledge, b = .06/.04, z = 5.63/3.40, ps , .001, while there was
involving 135 independent samples, and 826 correlations between no difference between calculation and word problem when corre-
phonological processing and mathematics for the final analyses. Gen- lating to mathematics, b = .02, z = 1.40, p = .16.
erally, the relation between phonological processing and mathematics Concerning the relations between phonological processing and dif-
was significant, r = .33, p , .001, 95% CI [.30, .36]. In our next step, ferent mathematics indexes (accuracy and fluency), we finally
the moderation effects of domain of phonological processing, types of obtained 578 correlations involving accuracy and 241 correlations
mathematics skills, age, gender, and sample types on the relation involving fluency. The average correlations between phonological
between phonological processing and mathematics were examined. processing skills and accuracy/fluency were significant: for accuracy,
r = .33, 95% CI [.30, .37]; for calculation, r = .33, 95% CI [.29, .37].
Moderation Effects of Phonological Processing Abilities Mathematics accuracy was more strongly related to phonological
processing than mathematics fluency, b = –.02, z = –2.90, p , .01.
Regarding the relations of different phonological processing
skills to mathematics, 264 correlations involving PA, 269 correla- Moderation Effects of Sample Characteristics and
tions involving PM, and 260 correlations involving RAN were
Designs
included. As shown in Table 2, the average correlation between
mathematics and each of the three phonological processing com- The present study also focused on how sample characteristics,
ponents was significant: for PA, r = .38, 95% CI [.33, .42]; for including grade level and sample type, appear to affect the
Table 1
Correlations and Heterogeneity Statistics for 11 Included Constructs
Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. PA — 0.744 0.622 0.685 0.782 0.303 0.696 0.853 0.624 0.747 0.568
2. RAN 0.325 — 0.665 0.709 0.738 0.537 0.745 0.667 0.275 0.736 0
3. PM 0.372 0.208 — 0.677 0.674 0.011 0.518 0.503 0.553 0.735 0.799
4. NVIQ 0.316 0.203 0.201 — 0.811 0.623 0.598 0.468 0.699 0.484 0.566
5. VOCAB 0.397 0.230 0.365 0.311 — 0 0 0.576 0.854 0.696 0.681
6. EF 0.343 0.286 0.313 0.289 0.352 — 0.609 0.383 0.672 0.701 0.559
7. NUM 0.389 0.279 0.254 0.272 0.246 0.339 — 0 0.483 0.601 0.802
8. CAL 0.400 0.347 0.282 0.338 0.326 0.332 0.456 — 0.466 0.567 0.355
9. WP 0.467 0.292 0.327 0.461 0.467 0.452 0.551 0.602 — 0.623 0.640
10. MACC 0.411 0.320 0.282 0.391 0.301 0.423 0.482 0.490 0.521 — 0.272
11. MF 0.376 0.387 0.264 0.336 0.273 0.362 0.453 0.487 0.535 0.556 —
Note. PA = phonological awareness; RAN = rapid automatized naming; PM = phonological memory; NVIQ = nonverbal IQ; VOCAB = vocabulary
knowledge; EF = executive functioning; NUM = number knowledge; CAL = calculation; WP = word problem; MACC = mathematics accuracy; MF =
mathematics fluency. Correlations are below the diagonal; heterogeneity statistics are above the diagonal. Zero values indicate homogenous correlations
(according to Q-test).
 8 YANG ET AL.

Table 2
Number of Effect Sizes, Correlations, 95% Confidence Interval (CI), Between-Study Sampling
Variance (s2) of the Associations Between Phonological Processing and Mathematics
Phonological processing and mathematics
Measure K r 95% CI s2
Average correlation 819 .33 [.30, .36] .02
Types of mathematics (1)
1. Basic number knowledge 407 .30 [.26, .33] .01
2. Calculation 258 .35 [.31, .38] .02
3. Word problem 148 .35 [.30, .40] .03
Types of mathematics (2)
1. Accuracy 578 .33 [.30, .37] .02
2. Fluency 241 .33 [.29, .37] .02
Types of phonological processing
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

1. PA 263 .38 [.33, .42] .02

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

2. RAN 272 .35 [.30, .39] .02

DRAN 55 .41 [.34, .47] .04
NDRAN 51 .31 [.26, .36] .02
3. PM 284 .28 [.24 .31] .02
DPM 75 .27 [.23, .32] .02
NDPM 65 .28 [.22, .33] .02
Sample
1. Typically developed 637 .33 [.30, .36] .02
2. Atypically developed (MD) 55 .30 [.24, .36] .00
3. Atypically developed (MD þ other) 127 .37 [.29, .43] .02
Grade
1. K1–K3 197 .36 [.31, .41] .01
2. G1–G3 292 .32 [.27, .37] .03
3. G4–G6 81 .29 [.17, .39] .03
Note. K = number of effect sizes; s2 = between-study sampling variance; PA = phonological awareness;
RAN = rapid automatized naming; PM = phonological memory; DRAN = digit RAN; NDRAN = nondigit
RAN; DPM = digit PM; NDPM = nondigit PM; MD = children with mathematics difficulties.

relations of phonological processing abilities with mathematics correlations that included kindergarteners, 292 including middle
across studies. Grades were categorized into three levels, including grades, and 81 senior grades within primary school. The average
K1 to K3 (kindergarten), Grade 1 to Grade 3 (middle grades), and correlations between phonological processing abilities and mathe-
Grade 4 to Grade 6 (senior grades). We finally obtained 197 matics among children at different grades were significant: for

Table 3
Moderation Analysis on the Associations Between Phonological Processing and Mathematics
Moderator B SE z 95% CI s2 Group comparisons
Types of mathematics (1) .02
Basic number knowledge vs. calculation .04 .01 3.40*** [.02, .06] Basic number knowledge ,
Basic number knowledge vs. word problem .06 .01 5.63*** [.04, .08] Calculation; Basic number
Calculation vs. word problem .01 .01 1.11 [.01, .03] knowledge , Word problem
Types of mathematics (2) .02
Accuracy vs. fluency .02 .01 2.90** [.04, .01] Accuracy . Fluency
Types of phonological processing .02
PA vs. RAN .02 .01 2.99** [.04, .01] PA . RAN. PM
PA vs. PM .10 .01 10.42*** [.12, .08]
RAN vs. PM .11 .01 9.79*** [.13, .09]
Sample .02
Typical vs. atypical (MD) .03 .04 .68 [.05, .10]
Grade
K1–K3 vs. G1–G3 .06 .03 1.85þ [.13, 0]
K1–K3 vs. G4–G6 .06 .03 1.88þ [.12, 0] K1-K3 . G3-G6
G1–G3 vs. G4–G6 .08 .06 1.43 [.20, .03]
Age .02 .01 3.12** [.03, .01] .02
Note. PA = phonological awareness; RAN = rapid automatized naming; PM = phonological memory; K = number of effect sizes; MD = children with
mathematics difficulties; s2 = between-study sampling variance.
þ
p = .06. ** p , .01. *** p , .001.
 PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSING SKILLS AND MATHEMATICS
children in kindergarten, r = .36, 95% CI [.31, .41]; for children
from Grades 1 to 3, r = .32, 95% CI [.27, .37]; for children from
Grade 4 to Grade 6, r = .29, 95% CI [.17, .39]. Moreover, group
types were categorized into typically developing children, low
achieving children, and high achieving children. Because there has
been a relative lack of studies among high achieving children on
associations between phonological processing and mathematics,
we only analyzed findings for the typically developing children
and low achieving children. The average correlations among pho-
nological processing and mathematics skills among typically
developing children were significant, r = .33, 95% CI [.30, .36].
The average correlations among phonological processing and
mathematics among atypically developing children were also sig-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
nificant, r = .30, 95% CI [.24, .36]. The correlations among phono-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
logical processing and mathematics among atypically developing
children and typically developing children did not differ, r = .03,
95% CI [–.05, .10].
Furthermore, we compared the effect sizes of the correlations
among subgroups of children. Results showed that phonological
processing was more strongly related to mathematics among kin-
dergarteners than primary school children from lower grades, and
primary school children from low grades showed a higher association
between phonological processing and mathematics than primary
school children from senior grades. Moreover, age significantly mod-
erated the relations of phonological processing abilities and mathe-
matics, b = –.02, z = –3.12, p , .01, 95% CI [–.01, –.03], suggesting
that younger children showed stronger relationships between them.
Taken together, our findings suggest that the relationship between
phonological processing and mathematics decreased with age.
Interaction Effects Between Phonological Processing
Abilities With Mathematics Domains and Sample
Characteristics
The present study also examined how sample characteristics
were associated with relations of mathematics skills and phonolog-
ical processing across three levels. Group comparisons in Table 4
show that PA was more strongly associated with word problems
than with basic number knowledge, b = .19, z = 10.92, p , .001,
Table 4
Moderation Analysis on the Associations Between Phonological Awareness (PA) and Mathematics
Moderator b SE
Types of mathematics (1)
Basic number knowledge vs. calculation .02 .02
Basic number knowledge vs. word problem .19 .02
Calculation vs. word problem .02 .03
Types of mathematics (2)
Accuracy vs. fluency .11 .01
Sample
Typical vs. atypical (MD) .05 .14
Grade
K1–K3 vs. G1–G3 .01 .04
K1–K3 vs. G4–G6 .06 .11
G1–G3 vs. G4–G6 .01 .06
Age .02 .01
Note. K = number of effect sizes; MD = children with mathematics difficulties; s = between-study sampling variance.
*** p , .001.
9
95% CI [.15, .22]. Table 5 indicates that RAN was more strongly
associated with calculation than with basic number knowledge,
b = .06, z = 3.87, p , .001, 95% CI [.03, .10], while it also yielded
stronger correlations with basic number knowledge as compared
with word problems, b = –.05, z = –2.83, p , .001, 95% CI [–.08,
–.01]. Table 6 indicates that PM was more strongly associated
with word problems than with calculation, b = .08, z = 5.73, p ,
.001, 95% CI [.05, .11], while it also reveals stronger correlations
with word problems than with basic number knowledge, b = .06,
z = 2.54, p , .001, 95% CI [.01, .11]. Both PA and PM were more
strongly associated with mathematics accuracy than mathematics
fluency, b = .11/.05, z = 8.86/3.80, p , .001, 95% CI [.09, .14]/
[.03, .08], while RAN was more strongly associated with mathe-
matics fluency than accuracy, b = .07, z = 6.44, p , .001, 95% CI
[.05, .10]. In addition, children at lower grades showed stronger
associations of RAN and PA with mathematics, while children
across grades showed comparable relations of PM with mathemat-
ics. Finally, typically developing children demonstrated compara-
ble associations between the three phonological processing
components and mathematics subskills as compared to children
with learning difficulties: for PA, b = .05, z = .37, p = .71, 95% CI
[–.23, .33]; for RAN, b = .05, z = .95, p = .34, 95% CI [–.05, .15];
for PM, b = .00, z = –.06, p = .95, 95% CI [–.14, .13].
The Unique Contribution of Phonological Processing to
Mathematics
Figure 2 shows the model specification in Stage 2 using a meta
structural equation modeling. We created a latent phonological
processing (based on PA, RAN, and PM) and a latent general abil-
ity variable (based on nonverbal IQ, executive functioning, and
vocabulary knowledge) and investigated their relations to each
mathematics subskill in a structural equation model. For each
mathematics subskill, including number knowledge, calculation,
mathematics accuracy, and mathematics fluency, models had ac-
ceptable goodness-of-fits. In Figure 2, when number knowledge
was set as the dependent variable, v2 = 20.0, df = 12, CFI = .996,
RMSEA = .006. When calculation was considered as the depend-
ent variable, v2 = 24.1, df = 12, CFI = .994, RMSEA = .008. When
mathematics accuracy was the dependent variable, v2 = 31.4,
Z 95% CI s2 Group comparisons
.02
.82 [.02, .05] Word problem.Basic number
10.92*** [.15, .22] knowledge
.78 [.03, .08]
.03
8.86*** [.14, .09] Accuracy . Fluency
.03
.37 [.23, .33]
.03
.26 [.07, .09]
.59 [.15, .28]
.23 [.13, .10]
1.66 [.04, .00] .02
2
 10 YANG ET AL.

Table 5
Moderation Analysis on the Associations Between Rapid Automatize Naming (RAN) and Mathematics
Moderator b SE z 95% CI s2 Group comparisons
Types of mathematics (1) .02
Basic number knowledge vs. calculation .06 .02 3.87*** [.03, .10] Word problem
Basic number knowledge vs. word problem .10 .02 5.13*** [.13, .06] , Basic number knowledge
Calculation vs. word problem .05 .02 2.83*** [.05, .10] , Calculation
Types of mathematics (2) .02
Accuracy vs. fluency .07 .01 6.44*** [.05, .10] Accuracy , Fluency
Sample .02
Typical vs. atypical (MD) .05 .05 .95 [.05, .15]
Grade .02
K1–K3 vs. G1–G3 .03 .05 .58 [.12, .07] K1-K3 . G4-G6
K1–K3 vs. G4–G6 .13 .06 2.25 [.24, .02]
G1–G3 vs. G4–G6 .06 .04 .79 [.09, .20]
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Age .02 .01 .2.08* [.04, .00] .02

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Note. K = number of effect sizes; MD = children with mathematics difficulties; s = between-study sampling variance.
2

* p , .05. *** p , .001.

df = 12, CFI = .992, RMSEA = .010. When mathematics fluency
was the dependent variable, v2 = 40.6, df = 12, CFI = .985,
RMSEA = .012. Due to the limited number of studies in word
problems (as low as three studies in a cell), we are unable to fit the
word problem model. Specifically, after statistically controlling
for those cognitive abilities, including nonverbal IQ, executive
functioning, and vocabulary knowledge, we still found medium to
high correlations between phonological processing and various
mathematics subskills (for number knowledge, r = .50; for calcula-
tion, r = .35; accuracy r = .20, and for fluency r = .54). Furthermore,
we fit a large MASEM model that included all the mathematics sub-
skills and then constrained each parameter of interest to be equal.
Unfortunately, due to the limited power and limited number of effect
sizes across the models (see Table 7), the large model failed to con-
verge when comparing across types of mathematics skills.
Discussion
The primary goal of this meta-analysis was to determine the
associations of phonological processing abilities with mathematics
skills among children across kindergarten and primary school.
Results indicated that the effect sizes of the associations between
various phonological processing subskills and mathematics were
significant and moderate (rs = .27
.41). Moreover, the three pho-
nological processing abilities (i.e., PA, RAN, and PM) contributed
differently to mathematics subskills across ages, grades, and sam-
ple characteristics. The relations between phonological processing
abilities and each mathematics subskill remained medium to high
when vocabulary knowledge, nonverbal intelligence, and execu-
tive functioning were statistically controlled.
These positive associations were expected given previous
research and theory: Specifically, PA is thought to help children to
represent and manipulate basic math knowledge, RAN is perhaps
an indicator of quick retrieval of mathematics knowledge from
long-term memory, and PM has been conceptualized to facilitate
working memory and reasoning during mathematics performance
and learning. Early phonological processing skills are likely to
promote math early, critical for later advanced math skills devel-
opment (LeFevre et al., 2010; Peng et al., 2020), highlighting the
theorized link between early phonological processing skills and
subsequent mathematics development. Thus, although correla-
tions or differences among correlations (e.g., .30 vs. .35) seem

Table 6
Moderation Analysis on the Associations Between Phonological Memory (PM) and Mathematics
Moderator b SE z 95% CI s2 Group comparisons
Types of mathematics (1) .02
Basic number knowledge vs. calculation .03 .02 1.66 [.01, .09] Basic number knowledge ,
Basic number knowledge vs. word problem .06 .02 2.54*** [.01, .11] Word problem; Calculation
Calculation vs. word problem .08 .01 5.73*** [.05, .11] , Word problem
Types of mathematics (2) .02
Accuracy vs. fluency .05 .01 3.80*** [.08, .03] Accuracy . Fluency
Sample .02
Typical vs. atypical (MD) .00 .07 .06 [.14, .13]
Grade .03
K1-K3 vs. G1-G3 .03 .05 .53 [.12, .07]
K1-K3 vs. G4-G6 .01 .08 .11 [.17, .15]
G1-G3 vs. G4-G6 .01 .04 .17 [.08, .07]
Age .00 .01 .45 [.02, .01] .02
Note. K = number of effect sizes; MD = children with mathematics difficulties; s = Between-study sampling variance.
2

*** p , .001.
 PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSING SKILLS AND MATHEMATICS 11

Figure 2
The Analytic Model for Investigating the Unique Contribution of Phonological Processing
to Each Mathematics Subskill, Including Basic Number Knowledge, Calculation, and Word
Problem
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Note. PA = phonological awareness; RAN = rapid automatized naming; PM = phonological memory;

NVIQ = nonverbal IQ; VOCAB = vocabulary knowledge; EF = executive functioning; PHO = latent variable
of phonological processing subskills; COG = latent variable of cognitive abilities.

relatively small/medium, they may still be theoretically impor- Moderation Effects of Phonological Processing Abilities
tant as a critical stepping stone for later math development.
These theoretical implications are in line with the findings from PA and RAN had robust associations in explaining mathematics
other more math-specific foundation skills (Chen & Li, 2014; abilities with effect sizes of .38 and .35, respectively. This is con-
Peng et al., 2016). For example, meta-analyses have demon- sistent with previous findings from Simmons and Singleton
strated small/medium relations between domain-specific math (2006), Göbel and Snowling (2010), and De Smedt and Boets
skills, such as number acuity, with symbolic math performance, (2010), studies with participants of different ages. The obtained
r = .20, 95% CI [.14, .26] (Chen & Li, 2014), and a small/me- significant relationship between PA and mathematics was compa-
dium relation between WM and mathematics, r = .35, 95% CI rable to one highlighted in the meta-analysis conducted by Peng et
[.32, .37] (Peng et al., 2016). The magnitudes of these correla- al. (2020; r = .35). Importantly, a number of theories have sug-
tions were similar to ours. gested that number verbal codes are consistently utilized during
mathematics tasks (e.g., Butterworth, 2005; Dehaene et al., 2003;
Table 7 LeFevre et al., 2010), and PA tasks are sensitive to underlying
Number of Studies for the Correlations of Phonological phonological representations and manipulations of these verbal
Processing Abilities and Each Mathematics Subskill mathematics tasks (Simmons & Singleton, 2008).
The obtained significant relationship between RAN and mathe-
Rapid matics was also comparable to the one reported in the meta-analy-
Phonological automatized Phonological
Mathematics subskill awareness (PA) naming (RAN) memory (PM) ses conducted by Koponen et al. (2017; r = .37) as well as Peng et
Number knowledge 37 21 23
al. (2020; r = .31). In the RAN-mathematics relationship analysis,
Calculation 44 24 22 we further distinguished and coded those empirical papers with
Word problem 19 8 8 varied naming stimuli (digit and nondigit). Results showed that
Mathematics accuracy 53 29 33 digit and nondigit RAN tasks did not significantly explain the
Mathematics fluency 33 19 19
RAN-mathematics relationship; this suggests that the possible
 12 YANG ET AL.
mechanism underlying RAN-mathematics may be a domain-gen-
eral retrieval ability (Koponen et al., 2017), independent of mate-
rial effects.
Moreover, the correlation between (digit and nondigit) PM and
mathematics was also similar to that found in the studies by Peng
et al. (2016; r = .30) and Friso-Van den Bos et al. (2013; r = .31).
Compared with PA and RAN, PM accounted for less variability in
mathematics in the present meta-analysis. There may be several
reasons for this slightly smaller association. First, the variance of
mathematics abilities explained by PM could have been captured
by PA and RAN. Consistent with this argument, Table 1 shows a
substantial correlation between PM and PA (r = .37), and a moder-
ate correlation between PM and RAN (r = .21). Second, most em-
pirical studies employed performance of either digit span tasks or
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
word span tasks as an indicator of PM ability. In digit span tasks,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
children are required to say aloud the sequence of orally presented
digits; testers record the maximum number of digits that children
can correctly recall (Wechsler, 1974). In word span tasks, children
need to recall lists of words of different lengths (Wagner et al.,
1999). Due to the lexical support for these familiar sound patterns
of digits and/or words, we presume that children probably rely
heavily on the representation of the lexicon in phonological stor-
age as a means of enlarging their memory span. A reliance on fa-
miliar words might turn out to be a less sensitive indicator of PM
than unfamiliar spoken stimuli such as pseudo words (Baddeley et
al., 1998; Köpke & Nespoulous, 2006), making PM less important
for mathematics learning. We recommend using pseudo words
when assessing PM in future work, and comparing different indi-
cators of PM when correlating these with various mathematics
abilities.
Moderation Effects of Mathematics Types
The current analysis suggests that the effect sizes of the rela-
tions among phonological processing abilities and mathematics
skills were influenced by mathematics types. PA was more closely
related to word problems than to basic number knowledge. This
might be because PA helps represent and manipulate the segments
of a spoken language, which share more overlapping language
components with word problems and is similar to the cognitive
processes of retrieving the calculation algorithm from word prob-
lems (Fuchs et al., 2014). Word problem was a stronger correlate
of PM than were either calculation or basic number knowledge.
This result might be due to the fact that word problems tend to be
most complicated, in that children need to extract, manipulate, and
represent arithmetic facts when solving problems. Both working
memory and long-term memory are involved in solving word
problems, which rely on PM as a medium. Meanwhile, RAN showed
a stronger association with calculation than with word problem tasks.
This is consistent with the finding from Koponen et al. (2017). These
researchers showed that RAN was a stronger correlate of mathemat-
ics when mathematics was operationalized with a calculation task
than when it was operationalized with comprehensive mathematics
achievement tests. Indeed, retrieving the digit names and operation
symbols, as well as retrieving answers from memory, are the most
important processes involved in calculation; these processes arguably
tap similar capacities as those required for RAN.
Mathematics fluency showed a stronger relation with RAN than
did mathematics accuracy. This finding was consistent with the
previous meta-analysis of Koponen et al. (2017). This result is rea-
sonable as RAN exerts greater influence for task fluency, while
taps accuracy to a much lesser extent. The moderator effects of
mathematics types can also be explained by the view that RAN
reflects the rate of access to and retrieval speed of phonological
representations stored in long-term memory. In contrast, mathe-
matics accuracy showed a stronger relation with PA than did
mathematics fluency with PA; similar results were found in the
relation of PM and mathematics subskills. This can be explained
by the fact that empirical studies tend to assess PA and PM using
tasks of accuracy rather than by how automatized these tasks are
among young children (e.g., Alloway et al., 2005).
Moderation Effects of Sample Characteristics
The association of RAN with mathematics was stronger among
kindergarten children than among primary school children. This
age-related difference in correlations might be attributable to the
fact that rate of access to phonological information stored in long-
term memory may be more beneficial for children in acquiring
mathematics knowledge at earlier ages. Notably, children’s fact re-
trieval skills as indicated by RAN are less automatized among
younger children (Georgiou & Stewart, 2013; Yang et al., 2019),
but naming of RAN symbols (single digits or letters) reaches auto-
maticity earlier than most mathematics knowledge. During the
process, RAN signifies the potential of an efficient system to pro-
cess multiple items simultaneously (Wei et al., 2015).
Along with grade as a significant moderator, we similarly found
that age could distinguish the relation between RAN and mathe-
matics, with children at younger ages demonstrating stronger rela-
tions. Further analyses showed that the relation of RAN with
mathematics was more sensitive to the age variable than were PA
and PM with mathematics. Given that RAN clearly and explicitly
involves speed of processing, at least in part (e.g., McBride-Chang
& Kail, 2002), and that, additionally, speed of processing increases
rapidly with development (e.g., Kail et al., 2013), the association
of RAN to mathematics may be particularly salient developmen-
tally: Those who are quicker to process mathematical symbols
likely perform better in a variety of mathematics tasks. RAN is at
least partly an indicator of this. In contrast, tasks of PA and PM
do not typically involve an explicit speed component, so their
interactions with mathematics may be less clearly influenced by
maturation.
Furthermore, the relations between phonological processing
abilities and mathematics did not vary between typically develop-
ing children and children with learning difficulties. Although chil-
dren at different developmental stages use various strategies in
learning mathematics, these strategies may all require phonologi-
cal processing. For instance, using retrieval-based processes is
more popular among typically developing children, for whom pho-
nological processing is essential (Hecht et al., 2001). In contrast,
counting strategies during mathematics problem solving, including
aloud counting, silent counting, and finger counting, are used more
frequently among struggling learners (Geary, 1993); phonological
processing is also highly associated with counting procedures
(Noël, 2009; Zhang et al., 2014). To be specific, an important role
of PA and PM for mathematics may be in facilitating the construc-
tion of the sound representation of mathematics terms. From this
perspective, both skills should be equally important for typically
 PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSING SKILLS AND MATHEMATICS
developing children and children with learning difficulties. In
addition, relatively few studies have involved children with special
needs as compared to typically developing children (55 vs. 637),
perhaps making it difficult to observe the subtle different relations
of phonological processing and mathematics across groups.
The study by Koponen et al. (2017) mainly focused on the rela-
tionship between RAN and mathematics. In contrast, the present
meta-analysis took a step further by comparing the relations of dif-
ferent phonological processing skills, including PA, PM, and
RAN, with mathematics subskills. More importantly, we took
advantage of the metaSEM approach to reveal the unique contribu-
tion of each phonological processing skill to mathematics. In addition
to the meta-analysis of zero-order correlations among phonological
processing and mathematics subskills, we expanded this important
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
work by conducting MASEM in order to identify which specific
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
mathematics subskill could be uniquely explained by phonological
processing. The MASEM results were generally consistent with the
above-mentioned simple meta-analysis findings. That is, after statisti-
cally controlling for domain-general abilities, including nonverbal
IQ, executive functioning, and vocabulary knowledge, we still found
a small to medium correlation between phonological processing (as
indexed with PA, RAN, and PM) and various mathematics subskills
(i.e., number knowledge, calculation, mathematics accuracy, and
mathematics fluency), indicating the unique associations of phono-
logical processing abilities in children's mathematics development
across most areas.
However, the metaSEM conducted using word problems as the
dependent variable resulted in unsatisfactory model fit, making it
difficult to directly compare the partial correlation results with
simple meta-analyses. We assume that this might have been due to
the small number of studies involving word problems compared
with the other mathematics subskills. Moreover, there might be
multicollinearity between phonological processing and domain-
general skills while predicting the word problems domains. For
similar reasons, when statistically controlling for general cognitive
skills and vocabulary knowledge, we had tried to separate each
phonological processing skill in the metaSEM, but the sample size
was too small to run the metaSEM. We could not obtain a model
fit with only a very small number of studies having all three PP
measures. Furthermore, when we fit a large metaSEM model con-
taining all the mathematics subskills and then constrained each
parameter of interest to be equal. With the limited power and a
limited number of effect sizes across the models, the large model
failed to converge when comparing across the types of mathemat-
ics skills. Such issues have been discussed by Jak and Cheung
(2020) that MASEM is very sensitive to missing data if the model
involves only manifest measures. Nevertheless, when looking at
the trends, phonological processing (as indexed by PA, RAN, and
PM) seemed to have a larger unique association with number
knowledge as compared with calculation, while it seemed to exert
tighter associations with mathematics fluency than that with math-
ematics accuracy. Our findings demonstrate that phonological
processing is important for mathematics development even with
many important variables statistically controlled. Peng et al.
(2020) did not statistically control for vocabulary knowledge in
their analyses, and the current findings are particularly strong
because we controlled for vocabulary knowledge, nonverbal
IQ, and executive functioning. Results are clear: Phonological
processing appears to support both the formation of numerical
13
representation and also the temporary storage and efficient re-
trieval of numerical knowledge.
Limitations and Future Directions
There are some aspects of these findings that should be extended
in the future. First, language and education systems across districts
might be considered as moderators in future studies. For instance,
mathematics training in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean children tend
to emerge earlier than in American children (Fuson & Kwon, 1991,
1992), and the base-10 concept in Chinese counting system facilitates
Chinese children in handling arithmetic problems with less cognitive
workload compared with children from English-speaking countries
(Fuson & Kwon, 1991; Geary et al., 1993).
Second, as shown, the relation between phonological processing
and mathematics highly depends upon what strategies are employed
by children during problem solving (e.g., De Smedt et al., 2010).
Children’s strategies used during mathematics problem solving,
including procedural strategies and fact retrieval strategies, should
be further evaluated. A supplementary interview might contribute
to analyzing children’s problem-solving procedures.
Third, although we have tried to precisely identify the variance
in mathematics explained by vocabulary knowledge, and to sepa-
rate the contributions of vocabulary knowledge and domain-gen-
eral cognitive skills (i.e., executive functioning and nonverbal IQ)
to mathematics, ultimately, our model did not fit the data well,
given relatively few observations, leading to a high standard error
in each related estimate. Thus, future studies should systematically
investigate the unique predictions of language and literacy for
mathematics.
Fourth, although we tried to group the meta-analytic SEM with
age or grade additionally controlled in the correlational raw data,
we did not obtain enough data points to use either of them as a
within-study covariate in the model. Lastly, we have tried to tease
apart different subskills within PA (i.e., onset-rime, syllable, and
phoneme). However, most of the studies of PA included two or
more subskills, and obtained a composite score in the correlation
tables. Although the present study tried to separate each phonolog-
ical processing ability in the metaSEM, ultimately, we failed to
obtain a model fit with only a handful of studies including all three
phonological processing measures. Future studies, hopefully with
more data, are needed to separate each phonological processing
skill and to investigate the unique contributions of PA, RAN, and
PM to each mathematics subskill, respectively. Finally, and cru-
cially, the criteria for mathematics difficulties varied across stud-
ies, and there are a relatively small number of studies focusing on
atypically developing children. More research is needed to investi-
gate the special needs of children with mathematics learning diffi-
culties during early education.
Educational Implications
Results of this meta-analysis revealed that the strengths of the
relations of phonological processing skills to mathematics abilities
were influenced by the nature of the phonological processing com-
ponent, the types of mathematics skills assessed, and children’s
own characteristics. With general vocabulary knowledge, nonver-
bal reasoning, and executive functioning statistically controlled,
PA, RAN, and PM were all uniquely associated with mathematics
 14 YANG ET AL.
subskills. Findings suggest that early PA and RAN abilities in partic-
ular may be good early indicators of mathematics performance. In
order for children to learn to recognize numerical information,
count, and reason about mathematical associations, phonological
processing is necessary; it offers a tool with which to predict and
intervene among children who are at risk of mathematics disabilities.
The finding of stronger relations of phonological processing abilities
and mathematics for younger children suggests that using phonolog-
ical principles might be more beneficial among children at earlier
stages of schooling. Overall, findings indicate that early accuracy
and retrieval practice in mathematics may help to strengthen the nu-
merical representation and retrieval of such representation, facilitat-
ing early math performance, which relies heavily on fact retrieval.
The current findings suggest that it may be beneficial to include
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
measures of phonological processing in mathematics screenings,
especially for children who are at risk for early mathematics difficul-
ties. However, that is an area in need of future research.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
meta-analysis.
*Abrahamson, C. A. (1994). Reading disabilities and the third R: The rela-
tionship between reading and arithmetic performance in reading dis-
abled children (Order No. 9504121). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
A & I. (304167944).
Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., Adams, A. M., Willis, C., Eaglen, R., &
Lamont, E. (2005). Working memory and phonological awareness as
predictors of progress towards early learning goals at school entry. Brit-
ish Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23(3), 417–426. https://doi
.org/10.1348/026151005X26804
*Amland, T., Lervåg, A., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2020). comorbidity
between math and reading problems: Is phonological processing a mu-
tual factor? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 14, 577304. https://doi
.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.577304
Amland, T., Lervåg, A., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2021). Comorbidity
between math and reading problems: Is phonological processing a mu-
tual factor? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 14(592), 1–11. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.577304
*Andersson, U. (2007). The contribution of working memory to children’s
mathematical word problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
21(9), 1201–1216. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1317
*Andersson, U., & Lyxell, B. (2007). Working memory deficit in children
with mathematical difficulties: A general or specific deficit? Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 96(3), 197–228. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.jecp.2006.10.001
*Andersson, U., & Östergren, R. (2012). Number magnitude processing
and basic cognitive functions in children with mathematical learning dis-
abilities. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 701–714. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.05.004
*Anvari, S. H., Trainor, L. J., Woodside, J., & Levy, B. A. (2002). Rela-
tions among musical skills, phonological processing, and early reading
ability in preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
83(2), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0965(02)00124-8
*Arán Filippetti, V., & Richaud, M. C. (2017). A structural equation mod-
eling of executive functions, IQ and mathematical skills in primary stu-
dents: Differential effects on number production, mental calculus and
arithmetical problems. Child Neuropsychology, 23(7), 864–888. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2016.1199665
*Arndt, D., Sahr, K., Opfermann, M., Leutner, D., & Fritz, A. (2013).
Core knowledge and working memory as prerequisites of early school
arithmetic. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 3(1), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v3i1.29
Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological
loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105(1),
158–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.105.1.158
*Barrouillet, P., & Lépine, R. (2005). Working memory and children’s use
of retrieval to solve addition problems. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 91(3), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.03.002
*Berg, D. H. (2008). Working memory and arithmetic calculation in chil-
dren: The contributory roles of processing speed, short-term memory,
and reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 99(4),
288–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2007.12.002
Bireta, T. J., Fry, S. E., Jalbert, A., Neath, I., Surprenant, A. M., Tehan, G.,
& Tolan, G. A. (2010). Backward recall and benchmark effects of work-
ing memory. Memory & Cognition, 38(3), 279–291. https://doi.org/10
.3758/MC.38.3.279
*Bjork, I. M., & Bowyer-Crane, C. (2013). Cognitive skills used to solve
mathematical word problems and numerical operations: A study of 6-to
7-year-old children. European Journal of Psychology of Education,
28(4), 1345–1360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0169-7
*Branum-Martin, L., Fletcher, J. M., & Stuebing, K. K. (2013). Classifica-
tion and identification of reading and math disabilities: The special case
of comorbidity. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(6), 490–499.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412468767
Bull, R., Espy, K. A., & Wiebe, S. A. (2008). Short-term memory, working
memory, and executive functioning in preschoolers: Longitudinal predic-
tors of mathematical achievement at age 7 years. Developmental Neuro-
psychology, 33(3), 205–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565640801982312
*Bull, R., & Johnston, R. S. (1997). Children’s arithmetical difficulties:
Contributions from processing speed, item identification, and short-term
memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 65(1), 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1996.2358
*Bull, R., Marschark, M., Nordmann, E., Sapere, P., & Skene, W. A.
(2018). The approximate number system and domain-general abilities as
predictors of math ability in children with normal hearing and hearing
loss. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 236–254.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12204
Butterworth, B. (2005). The development of arithmetical abilities. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10
.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00374.x
*Campos, I. S., Almeida, L. S., Ferreira, A. I., Martinez, L. F., &
Ramalho, G. (2013). Cognitive processes and math performance: A
study with children at third grade of basic education. European Journal
of Psychology of Education, 28(2), 421–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10212-012-0121-x
Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action.
Houghton Mifflin.
Chard, D. J., Clarke, B., Baker, S., Otterstedt, J., Braun, D., & Katz, R.
(2005). Using measures of number sense to screen for difficulties in
mathematics: Preliminary findings. Assessment for Effective Interven-
tion, 30(2), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/073724770503000202
Chen, Q., & Li, J. (2014). Association between individual differences in
non-symbolic number acuity and math performance: A meta-analysis.
Acta Psychologica, 148, 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014
.01.016
Cheung, M. W. L. (2014). metaSEM: An R package for meta-analysis
using structural equation modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1521.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01521
Cheung, M. W. L., & Chan, W. (2005). Meta-analytic structural equation
modeling: A two-stage approach. Psychological Methods, 10(1), 40–64.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.1.40
Cheung, M. W. L., & Hafdahl, A. R. (2016). Special issue on meta-ana-
lytic structural equation modeling: Introduction from the guest Eds.
 PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSING SKILLS AND MATHEMATICS
Research Synthesis Methods, 7(2), 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jrsm.1212
*Child, A. E., Cirino, P. T., Fletcher, J. M., Willcutt, E. G., & Fuchs, L. S.
(2019). A cognitive dimensional approach to understanding shared and
unique contributions to reading, math, and attention skills. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 52(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219
418775115
Cho, J. R., & McBride-Chang, C. (2005). Levels of phonological aware-
ness in Korean and English: A 1-year longitudinal study. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 97(4), 564–571. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022
-0663.97.4.564
*Cirino, P. T. (2011). The interrelationships of mathematical precursors in
kindergarten. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108(4),
713–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.11.004
*Cirino, P. T., Child, A. E., & MacDonald, K. (2018). Longitudinal predic-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tors of the overlap between reading and math skills. Contemporary Edu-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
cational Psychology, 54, 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych
.2018.06.002
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.).
Erlbaum.
*Cowan, R., Donlan, C., Shepherd, D. L., Cole-Fletcher, R., Saxton, M., &
Hurry, J. (2011). Basic calculation proficiency and mathematics
achievement in elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 103(4), 786–803. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024556
*Cowan, R., & Powell, D. (2014). The contributions of domain-general
and numerical factors to third-grade arithmetic skills and mathematical
learning disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 214–229.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034097
*Cui, J., Georgiou, G. K., Zhang, Y., Li, Y., Shu, H., & Zhou, X. (2017).
Examining the relationship between rapid automatized naming and
arithmetic fluency in Chinese kindergarten children. Journal of Experi-
mental Child Psychology, 154, 146–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp
.2016.10.008
*Cupples, L., Ching, T. Y., Crowe, K., Day, J., & Seeto, M. (2014). Pre-
dictors of early reading skill in 5-year-old children with hearing loss
who use spoken language. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(1), 85–104.
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.60
de Jong, P. F., & van der Leij, A. (1999). Specific contributions of phono-
logical abilities to early reading acquisition: Results from a Dutch latent
variable longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3),
450–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.450
De Smedt, B., & Boets, B. (2010). Phonological processing and arithmetic
fact retrieval: Evidence from developmental dyslexia. Neuropsychologia,
48(14), 3973–3981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.10
.018
De Smedt, B., Taylor, J., Archibald, L., & Ansari, D. (2010). How is pho-
nological processing related to individual differences in children’s arith-
metic skills? Developmental Science, 13(3), 508–520. https://doi.org/10
.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00897.x
Dehaene, S. (1992). Varieties of mathematical abilities. Cognition, 67,
353–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90049-N
Dehaene, S., Piazza, M., Pinel, P., & Cohen, L. (2003). Three parietal cir-
cuits for number processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20(3),
487–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290244000239
*Durand, M., Hulme, C., Larkin, R., & Snowling, M. (2005). The cogni-
tive foundations of reading and arithmetic skills in 7- to 10-year-olds.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 91(2), 113–136. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.01.003
Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in
meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Jour-
nal, 315(7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
15
*Foster, M. E., Anthony, J. L., Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. H. (2015).
Processes in the development of mathematics in kindergarten children
from Title 1 schools. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 140,
56–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.07.004
Friso-Van den Bos, I., Van der Ven, S. H., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van
Luit, J. E. (2013). Working memory and mathematics in primary school
children: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 10, 29–44.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.05.003
*Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K., Bryant, J. D., &
Hamlett, C. L. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive
determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology,
97(3), 493–513. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.493
*Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Powell, S. R., Schumacher,
R. F., Hamlett, C. L., Vernier, E., Namkung, J. M., & Vukovic, R. K.
(2012). Contributions of domain-general cognitive resources and different
forms of arithmetic development to pre-algebraic knowledge. Develop-
mental Psychology, 48(5), 1315–1326. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027475
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Hamlett, C. L., & Wang, A. Y.
(2015). Is word-problem solving a form of text comprehension? Scien-
tific Studies of Reading, 19(3), 204–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10888438.2015.1005745
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M.,
Capizzi, A. M., Schatschneider, C., & Fletcher, J. M. (2006). The cogni-
tive correlates of third-grade skill in arithmetic, algorithmic computa-
tion, and arithmetic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology,
98(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.29
*Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Lambert, W., Stuebing, K., &
Fletcher, J. M. (2008). Problem solving and computational skill: Are
they shared or distinct aspects of mathematical cognition? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100(1), 30–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022
-0663.100.1.30
*Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Stecker, P. M. (1990). The role of
skills analysis in curriculum-based measurement in math. School Psychology
Review, 19(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1990.12087335
*Fuchs, L. S., Geary, D. C., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L.,
Seethaler, P. M., Bryant, J. D., & Schatschneider, C. (2010). Do differ-
ent types of school mathematics development depend on different con-
stellations of numerical versus general cognitive abilities? Developmental
Psychology, 46(6), 1731–1746. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020662
Fuchs, L. S., Powell, S. R., Cirino, P. T., Schumacher, R. F., Marrin, S.,
Hamlett, C. L., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., & Changas, P. C. (2014).
Does calculation or word-problem instruction provide a stronger route
to prealgebraic knowledge? Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4),
990–1006. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036793
*Fung, W. W. Y. (2015). Working memory components as predictors of
word problem solving: Does rapid automatized naming speed mediate
the relationship? [Doctoral dissertation]. University of California
Riverside.
Fuson, K. C., & Kwon, Y. (1991). Chinese-based regular and European
irregular systems of number words: The disadvantages for English
speaking children. In K. Durkin & B. Shire (Eds.), Language and mathe-
matical education (pp. 211–216). Open University Press.
Fuson, K. C., & Kwon, Y. (1992). Korean children’s single-digit addition
and subtraction: Numbers structured by ten. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 23(2), 148–165. https://doi.org/10.2307/
749498
Gathercole, S. E., & Adams, A.-M. (1993). Phonological working memory
in very young children. Developmental Psychology, 29(4), 770–778.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.29.4.770
Geary, D. C. (1993). Mathematical disabilities: Cognitive, neuropsycho-
logical, and genetic components. Psychological Bulletin, 114(2),
345–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.345
Geary, D. C. (1995). Reflections of evolution and culture in children’s cog-
nition. Implications for mathematical development and instruction.
 16 YANG ET AL.
American Psychologist, 50(1), 24–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066
X.50.1.24
Geary, D. C., Bow-Thomas, C. C., Fan, L., & Siegler, R. S. (1993). Even
before formal instruction, Chinese children outperform American chil-
dren in mental addition. Cognitive Development, 8(4), 517–529. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(05)80007-3
Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., & Bailey, D. H. (2012). Fact retrieval deficits
in low achieving children and children with mathematical learning dis-
ability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(4), 291–307. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0022219410392046
Georgiou, G., & Stewart, B. (2013). Is rapid automatized naming auto-
matic? Preschool and Primary Education, 1, 67–81. https://doi.org/10
.12681/ppej.46
*Georgiou, G. K., Tziraki, N., Manolitsis, G., & Fella, A. (2013). Is rapid
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
automatized naming related to reading and mathematics for the same
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
reason(s)? A follow-up study from kindergarten to Grade 1. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 115(3), 481–496. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.jecp.2013.01.004
Göbel, S. M., & Snowling, M. J. (2010). Number-processing skills in
adults with dyslexia. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Experimental Psychology, 63(7), 1361–1373. https://doi.org/10
.1080/17470210903359206
Grabner, R. H., Ansari, D., Koschutnig, K., Reishofer, G., Ebner, F., &
Neuper, C. (2009). To retrieve or to calculate? Left angular gyrus medi-
ates the retrieval of arithmetic facts during problem solving. Neuropsy-
chologia, 47(2), 604–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia
.2008.10.013
*Hannula, M. M., Lepola, J., & Lehtinen, E. (2010). Spontaneous focusing
on numerosity as a domain-specific predictor of arithmetical skills. Jour-
nal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107(4), 394–406. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jecp.2010.06.004
*Hart, S. A., Petrill, S. A., Thompson, L. A., & Plomin, R. (2009). The
ABCs of math: A genetic analysis of mathematics and its links with
reading ability and general cognitive ability. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 101(2), 388–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015115
*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 computation skills: A longitudi-
nal study from second to fifth grades. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 79(2), 192–227. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.2000.2586
Hedges, L. V., Tipton, E., & Johnson, M. C. (2010). Robust variance esti-
mation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates.
Research Synthesis Methods, 1(1), 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.5
*Holmes, J. (2005). Working memory and children's mathematical skills
[Durham theses, Durham University]. Durham E-Theses Online. http://
etheses.dur.ac.uk/2205/
*Hornung, C., Schiltz, C., Brunner, M., & Martin, R. (2014). Predicting
first-grade mathematics achievement: The contributions of domain-gen-
eral cognitive abilities, nonverbal number sense, and early number com-
petence. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 272. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg
.2014.00272
*Imbo, I., & Vandierendonck, A. (2007). The development of strategy use
in elementary school children: Working memory and individual differ-
ences. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96(4), 284–309.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2006.09.001
Jak, S., & Cheung, M. W.-L. (2020). Meta-analytic structural equation
modeling with moderating effects on SEM parameters. Psychological
Methods, 25(4), 430–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000245
*Jap, B. A. J., Borleffs, E., & Maassen, B. A. M. (2017). Towards identify-
ing dyslexia in Standard Indonesian: The development of a reading
assessment battery. Reading and Writing, 30(8), 1729–1751. https://doi
.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9748-y
*Kail, R., & Hall, L. K. (1999). Sources of developmental change in child-
ren’s word-problem performance. Journal of Educational Psychology,
91(4), 660–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.660
Kail, R. V., McBride-Chang, C., Ferrer, E., Cho, J. R., & Shu, H. (2013).
Cultural differences in the development of processing speed. Develop-
mental Science, 16(3), 476–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12039
*Kleemans, T., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2011a). Cognitive and lin-
guistic precursors to numeracy in kindergarten: Evidence from first and
second language learners. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(5),
555–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.07.008
*Kleemans, T., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2011b). Precursors to numer-
acy in kindergartners with specific language impairment. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 32(6), 2901–2908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.ridd.2011.05.013
*Kleemans, T., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2012). Naming speed as a
clinical marker in predicting basic calculation skills in children with spe-
cific language impairment. Research in Developmental Disabilities,
33(3), 882–889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2011.12.007
*Kleemans, T., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2014). Cognitive and linguis-
tic predictors of basic arithmetic skills: Evidence from first-language and
second-language learners. International Journal of Disability Develop-
ment and Education, 61(3), 306–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X
.2014.934017
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation model-
ing (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
Konstantopoulos, S. (2011). Fixed effects and variance components esti-
mation in three-level meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 2(1),
61–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.35
Köpke, B., & Nespoulous, J. L. (2006). Working memory performance in
expert and novice interpreters. Interpreting, 8(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/
10.1075/intp.8.1.02kop
*Koponen, T., Aunola, K., Ahonen, T., & Nurmi, J. E. (2007). Cognitive
predictors of single-digit and procedural calculation skills and their
covariation with reading skill. Journal of Experimental Child Psychol-
ogy, 97(3), 220–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2007.03.001
*Koponen, T., Eklund, K., Heikkilä, R., Salminen, J., Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D.,
& Aro, M. (2020). Cognitive correlates of the covariance in reading and
arithmetic fluency: Importance of Serial retrieval fluency. Child Devel-
opment, 91(4), 1063–1080. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13287
Koponen, T., Georgiou, G., Salmi, P., Leskinen, M., & Aro, M. (2017). A
meta-analysis of the relation between RAN and mathematics. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 109(7), 977–992. https://doi.org/10.1037/
edu0000182
*Koponen, T., Salmi, P., Eklund, K., & Aro, T. (2013). Counting and
RAN: Predictors of arithmetic calculation and reading fluency. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0029285
*Koponen, T., Salmi, P., Torppa, M., Eklund, K., Aro, T., Aro, M.,
Poikkeus, A.-M., Lerkkanen, M.-K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2016). Counting
and rapid naming predict the fluency of arithmetic and reading skills.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44-45, 83–94. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.02.004
*Korhonen, J., Nyroos, M., Jonsson, B., & Eklöf, H. (2018). Additive and
multiplicative effects of working memory and test anxiety on mathemat-
ics performance in grade 3 students. Educational Psychology, 38(5),
572–595. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1356449
*Korpipää, H., Koponen, T., Aro, M., Tolvanen, A., Aunola, K., Poikkeus,
A.-M., Lerkkanen, M.-K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2017). Covariation between read-
ing and arithmetic skills from Grade 1 to Grade 7. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 51, 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.06.005
*Krajewski, K., & Schneider, W. (2009). Exploring the impact of phonologi-
cal awareness, visual-spatial working memory, and preschool quantity-
number competencies on mathematics achievement in elementary school:
 PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSING SKILLS AND MATHEMATICS
Findings from a 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 103(4), 516–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.03.009
*Kroesbergen, E. H., Van de Rijt, B. A. M., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2007). work-
ing memory and early mathematics: possibilities for early identification of
mathematics learning disabilities. Advances in Learning and Behavioral Dis-
abilities, 20, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-004X(07)20001-1
*Kyttälä, M., Aunio, P., & Hautamäki, J. (2010). Working memory resour-
ces in young children with mathematical difficulties. Scandinavian Jour-
nal of Psychology, 51(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450
.2009.00736.x
*Kyttälä, M., Aunio, P., Lepola, J., & Hautamäki, J. (2014). The role of
the working memory and language skills in the prediction of word prob-
lem solving in 4- to 7-year-old children. Educational Psychology, 34(6),
674–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.814192
LeFevre, J. A., Fast, L., Skwarchuk, S. L., Smith-Chant, B. L., Bisanz, J.,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Kamawar, D., & Penner-Wilger, M. (2010). Pathways to mathematics:
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Longitudinal predictors of performance. Child Development, 81(6),
1753–1767. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01508.x
Li, S. C., & Lewandowsky, S. (1995). Forward and backward recall: Dif-
ferent retrieval processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learn-
ing, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 837–847. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278
-7393.21.4.837
Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D., Fischer, F. W., & Carter, B. (1974).
Explicit syllable and phoneme segmentation in the young child. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 18(2), 201–212. https://doi.org/10
.1016/0022-0965(74)90101-5
Mann, V. A., & Liberman, I. Y. (1984). Phonological awareness and
verbal short-term memory. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17(10),
592–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221948401701005
*Manolitsis, G., Georgiou, G. K., & Tziraki, N. (2013). Examining the
effects of home literacy and numeracy environment on early reading and
math acquisition. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(4), 692–703.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.05.004
*Martin, R. B. (2011). Counting procedural skill and conceptual knowl-
edge in kindergarten as predictors of Grade 1 math skills [Doctoral dis-
sertation]. University of Houston.
*Mazzocco, M. M. M., & Myers, G. F. (2003). Complexities in identifying
and defining mathematics learning disability in the primary school-age
years. Annals of Dyslexia, 53(1), 218–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11881-003-0011-7
McBride, C. (2016). Children’s literacy development: A cross-cultural
perspective on learning to read and write (2nd ed.). Routledge.
McBride-Chang, C., & Ho, C. S. H. (2000). Developmental issues in Chi-
nese children’s character acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 92(1), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.50
McBride-Chang, C., & Kail, R. V. (2002). Cross-cultural similarities in the
predictors of reading acquisition. Child Development, 73(5), 1392–1407.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00479
*McGrew, K. S., & Hessler, G. L. (1995). The relationship between the
WJ-R Gf-Gc cognitive clusters and mathematics achievement across the
life-span. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13(1), 21–38.
https://doi.org/10.1177/073428299501300102
*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(4), 408–424. https://doi.org/
10.1111/bjdp.12016
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred
reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA
statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269. https://doi
.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
Moll, K., Fussenegger, B., Willburger, E., & Landerl, K. (2009). RAN is
not a measure of orthographic processing: Evidence from the asymmetric
17
German orthography. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(1), 1–25. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10888430802631684
*Moll, K., Snowling, M. J., Göbel, S. M., & Hulme, C. (2015). Early lan-
guage and executive skills predict variations in number and arithmetic
skills in children at family-risk of dyslexia and typically developing con-
trols. Learning and Instruction, 38, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.learninstruc.2015.03.004
Morrison, F. J., Smith, L., & Dow-Ehrensberger, M. (1995). Education and
cognitive development: A natural experiment. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 31(5), 789–799. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.5.789
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of
Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards
mathematics. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices
& Council of Chief State School Officers.
*Navarro, J. I., Aguilar, M., Alcalde, C., Ruiz, G., Marchena, E., &
Menacho, I. (2011). Inhibitory processes, working memory, phonologi-
cal awareness, naming speed, and early arithmetic achievement. The
Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14(2), 580–588. https://doi.org/10.5209/
rev_SJOP.2011.v14.n2.6
*Noël, M. P. (2009). Counting on working memory when learning to count
and to add: A preschool study. Developmental Psychology, 45(6),
1630–1643. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016224
Noel, M., Seron, X., & Trovarelli, F. (2004). Working memory as a predic-
tor of addition skills and addition strategies in children. Cahiers de Psy-
chologie Cognitive, 22, 3–25.
OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do—
Student performance in mathematics, reading and science (Vol. I).
PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264201118-en
Onochie-Quintanilla, E., Defior, S. A., & Simpson, I. C. (2019). RAN and
orthographic processing: What can syllable frequency tell us about this
relationship? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 182, 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.01.002
*Östergren, R., & Träff, U. (2013). Early number knowledge and cognitive
ability affect early arithmetic ability. Journal of Experimental Child Psy-
chology, 115(3), 405–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.03.007
Paas, F., van Gog, T., & Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory: New
conceptualizations, specifications, and integrated research perspectives.
Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.100
7/s10648-010-9133-8
*Passolunghi, M. C., & Lanfranchi, S. (2012). Domain-specific and do-
main-general precursors of mathematical achievement: A longitudinal
study from kindergarten to first grade. The British Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 82(Pt. 1), 42–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279
.2011.02039.x
*Passolunghi, M. C., & Siegel, L. S. (2004). Working memory and access
to numerical information in children with disability in mathematics.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88(4), 348–367. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2004.04.002
*Passolunghi, M. C., Lanfranchi, S., Altoè, G., & Sollazzo, N. (2015).
Early numerical abilities and cognitive skills in kindergarten children.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 135, 25–42. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jecp.2015.02.001
*Passolunghi, M. C., Mammarella, I. C., & Altoè, G. (2008). Cognitive
abilities as precursors of the early acquisition of mathematical skills dur-
ing first through second grades. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33(3),
229–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565640801982320
*Passolunghi, M. C., Vercelloni, B., & Schadee, H. (2007). The precursors
of mathematics learning: Working memory, phonological ability and nu-
merical competence. Cognitive Development, 22(2), 165–184. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.09.001
*Pauly, H., Linkersdörfer, J., Lindberg, S., Woerner, W., Hasselhorn, M.,
& Lonnemann, J. (2011). Domain-specific Rapid Automatized Naming
deficits in children at risk for learning disabilities. Journal of Neurolinguistics,
24(5), 602–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2011.02.002
 18 YANG ET AL.
Pelletier, P. M., Ahmad, S. A., & Rourke, B. P. (2001). Classification rules
for basic phonological processing disabilities and nonverbal learning
disabilities: Formulation and external validity. Child Neuropsychology,
7(2), 84–98. https://doi.org/10.1076/chin.7.2.84.3127
Peng, P., Lin, X., Ünal, Z. E., Lee, K., Namkung, J., Chow, J., & Sales, A.
(2020). Examining the mutual relations between language and mathe-
matics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(7), 595–634.
https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000231
Peng, P., Namkung, J., Barnes, M., & Sun, C. (2016). A meta-analysis of
mathematics and working memory: Moderating effects of working
memory domain, type of mathematics skill, and sample characteristics.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 455–473. https://doi.org/10
.1037/edu0000079
Peng, P., Wang, T., Wang, C., & Lin, X. (2019). A meta-analysis on the
relation between fluid intelligence and reading/mathematics: Effects of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tasks, age, and social economics status. Psychological Bulletin, 145(2),
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
189–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000182
*Peng, P., Yang, X., & Meng, X. (2017). The relation between approxi-
mate number system and early arithmetic: The mediation role of numeri-
cal knowledge. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 157,
111–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.12.011
Perfetti, C. A., Beck, I., & Hughes, C. (1981, April). Phonemic knowledge
and learning to read [Paper presentation]. The meeting of the Society
for Research in Child Development, Boston, MA, USA.
*Piselli, K. D. (2017). An exploration of the relationships among Cattell-
Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory-aligned cognitive abilities and math fluency
[Doctoral dissertation].
*Price, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Bert, D. S. (2016). The mediating relation
between symbolic and nonsymbolic foundations of math competence.
PLoS ONE, 11(2), e0148981. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone
.0148981
Pugh, K. R., Mencl, W. E., Jenner, A. R., Katz, L., Frost, S. J., Lee, J. R.,
Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2001). Neurobiological studies of
reading and reading disability. Journal of Communication Disorders,
34(6), 479–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9924(01)00060-0
Rasmussen, C., & Bisanz, J. (2005). Representation and working memory
in early arithmetic. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 91(2),
137–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.01.004
*Rasmussen, C., & Bisanz, J. (2011). The relation between mathematics
and working memory in young children with fetal alcohol spectrum dis-
orders. The Journal of Special Education, 45(3), 184–191. https://doi
.org/10.1177/0022466909356110
Schlaggar, B. L., & McCandliss, B. D. (2007). Development of neural sys-
tems for reading. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 30, 475–503. https://
doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135645
Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. S. (2018). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll
theory of cognitive abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & E. M. McDonough
(Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues
(pp. 73–163). The Guilford Press.
Shu, H., Peng, H., & McBride-Chang, C. (2008). Phonological awareness
in young Chinese children. Developmental Science, 11(1), 171–181.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00654.x
Siegel, L. S., & Linder, B. A. (1984). Short-term memory processes in
children with reading and arithmetic learning disabilities. Developmen-
tal Psychology, 20(2), 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.20.2
.200
Simmons, F. R., & Singleton, C. (2006). The mental and written arithmetic
abilities of adults with dyslexia. Dyslexia, 12(2), 96–114. https://doi.org/
10.1002/dys.312
Simmons, F. R., & Singleton, C. (2008). Do weak phonological representa-
tions impact on arithmetic development? A review of research into arith-
metic and dyslexia. Dyslexia, 14(2), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys
.341
St. Clair-Thompson, H. L. (2010). Backwards digit recall: A measure of
short-term memory of working memory? The European Journal of Cog-
nitive Psychology, 22(2), 286–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440
902771299
Sterne, J. A. C., & Egger, M. (2005). Regression methods to detect publi-
cation and other bias in meta-analysis. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton,
& M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention,
assessment and adjustment (pp. 99–110). Wiley. https://doi.org/10
.1002/0470870168.ch6
*Swanson, H. L. (2006a). Cognitive processes that underlie mathematical
precociousness in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psy-
chology, 93(3), 239–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.09.006
*Swanson, H. L. (2006b). Cross-sectional and incremental changes in
working memory and mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 98(2), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663
.98.2.265
*Swanson, H. L. (2011). Working memory, attention, and mathematical
problem solving: A longitudinal study of elementary school children.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 821–837. https://doi.org/10
.1037/a0025114
*Swanson, H. L., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. (2004). The relationship
between working memory and mathematical problem solving in children
at risk and not at risk for serious math difficulties. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 96(3), 471–487. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663
.96.3.471
*Swanson, H. L., & Fung, W. (2016). Working memory components and
problem-solving accuracy: Are there multiple pathways. ? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 108(8), 1153–1177. https://doi.org/10.1037/
edu0000116
*Swanson, H. L., Jerman, O., & Zheng, X. (2008). Growth in working
memory and mathematical problem solving in children at risk and not at
risk for serious math difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology,
100(2), 343–379. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.343
*Swanson, L., & Kim, K. (2007). Working memory, short-term memory,
and naming speed as predictors of children’s mathematical performance.
Intelligence, 35(2), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.07
.001
*Tang, S. (2016). Examining the role of phonological memory in math and
reading development [Doctoral dissertation].
Toll, S. W., & Van Luit, J. E. (2013). Accelerating the early numeracy de-
velopment of kindergartners with limited working memory skills
through remedial education. Research in Developmental Disabilities,
34(2), 745–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.09.003
Turkeltaub, P. E., Gareau, L., Flowers, D. L., Zeffiro, T. A., & Eden, G. F.
(2003). Development of neural mechanisms for reading. Nature Neuro-
science, 6(7), 767–773. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1065
*Vanbinst, K., Ansari, D., Ghesquière, P., & De Smedt, B. (2016). Sym-
bolic numerical magnitude processing is as important to arithmetic as
phonological awareness is to reading. PLoS ONE, 11(3), e0151045.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151045
*Vauras, M., Kinnunen, R., & Rauhanummi, T. (1999). The role of meta-
cognition in the context of integrated strategy intervention. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(4), 555–569. https://doi.org/10
.1007/BF03172979
Viechtbauer, W. (2005). Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estima-
tors in the random-effects model. Journal of Educational and Behavioral
Statistics, 30(3), 261–293. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986030003261
Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in r with the metafor
package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10
.18637/jss.v036.i03
Viechtbauer, W., & Cheung, M. W.-L. (2010). Outlier and influence diag-
nostics for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2), 112–125.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.11
 PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSING SKILLS AND MATHEMATICS
Vigneau, M., Beaucousin, V., Hervé, P. Y., Duffau, H., Crivello, F.,
Houdé, O., Mazoyer, B., & Tzourio-Mazoyer, N. (2006). Meta-analyz-
ing left hemisphere language areas: Phonology, semantics, and sentence
processing. NeuroImage, 30(4), 1414–1432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.neuroimage.2005.11.002
Wagner, R. K. (1986). Phonological processing abilities and reading:
Implications for disabled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
19(10), 623–630. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221948601901009
Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological proc-
essing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 101(2), 192–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.2
.192
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, A. C. (1994). Development of
reading-related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of
bidirectional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Devel-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
opmental Psychology, 30(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
.30.1.73
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, A. C., & Pearson, N. A. (1999).
Comprehensive test of phonological processing: CTOPP. Pro-ed.
Wagner, R., Balthazor, M., Hurley, S., Morgan, S., Rashotte, C., Shaner,
R., Simmons, K., & Stage, S. (1987). The nature of prereaders’ phono-
logical processing abilities. Cognitive Development, 2(4), 355–373.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(87)80013-8
Wechsler, D. (1974). Manual for the Wechsler intelligence scale for chil-
dren, revised. Psychological Corporation.
Wei, W., Georgiou, G. K., & Deng, C. (2015). Examining the cross-lagged
relationships between RAN and word reading in Chinese. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 19(6), 446–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438
.2015.1077447
Wilkinson, G. S., & Robertson, G. J. (2006). Wide range achievement test
(WRAT4). Psychological Assessment Resources.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-John-
son III Tests of Achievement. Riverside Publishing.
View publication stats
19
Yang, X., & McBride, C. (2020). How do phonological processing abilities
contribute to early Chinese reading and mathematics? Educational Psy-
chology, 40, 893–911. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2020.1771679
Yang, X., McBride, C., Ho, C. S. H., & Chung, K. K. H. (2019). Longitu-
dinal associations of phonological processing skills, Chinese word read-
ing, and arithmetic. Reading and Writing, 33, 1679–1699. https://doi
.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09998-9
Zhang, D., Ding, Y., Barrett, D. E., Xin, Y. P., & Liu, R. (2014). A com-
parison of strategic development for multiplication problem solving in
low-, average-, and high-achieving students. European Journal of Psy-
chology of Education, 29(2), 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212
-013-0194-1
*Zhang, X., Koponen, T., Räsänen, P., Aunola, K., Lerkkanen, M. K., &
Nurmi, J. E. (2014). Linguistic and spatial skills predict early arithmetic
development via counting sequence knowledge. Child Development,
85(3), 1091–1107. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12173
*Zhang, X., Räsänen, P., Koponen, T., Aunola, K., Lerkkanen, M. K., &
Nurmi, J. E. (2017). Knowing, applying, and reasoning about arithmetic:
Roles of domain-general and numerical skills in multiple domains of
arithmetic learning. Developmental Psychology, 53(12), 2304–2318.
https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000432
*Zheng, X., Swanson, H. L., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2011). Working mem-
ory components as predictors of children’s mathematical word problem
solving. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110(4), 481–498.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.06.001
*Zhou, X., Wei, W., Zhang, Y., Cui, J., & Chen, C. (2015). Visual percep-
tion can account for the close relation between numerosity processing
and computational fluency. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1364. https://doi
.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01364
Received June 26, 2020
Revision received May 25, 2021
Accepted August 10, 2021 n