TEDI-MATH©, A Test for Diagnostic

Assessment of Mathematical
Disabilities1

Grégoire, J., Van Nieuwenhoven, C. & Noël, M.-P.

Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium

TEDI-MATH is published by ECPA

(Paris)
Abstract
After the publication of The Child’s Conception of Number (Piaget & Szeminska,
1941), the Piagetian theory was, for nearly forty years, the main reference for
psychologists assessing mathematical disabilities. Gelman and Gallistel’s (1978)
research on the counting procedure, and the neuropsychological models on number
processing and calculation (McCloskey, 1992) have modified this situation and our
understanding of the development of child mathematical knowledge, and of
mathematical disabilities.
Our main goal was to develop a test integrating the Piagetian heritage and the new
cognitivist models. This test assesses five facets of the understanding of number: (1)
the counting procedure –the five principles described by Gelman and the functional
use of counting-; (2) the knowledge of the numerical system – Arab and verbal
numerical systems, base-ten system, transcoding-; (3) the logical operations
underlying the concept of number -classification, seriation, conservation, inclusion
and number additive decomposition-; (4) the ability to estimate the number size; (5)
the computational abilities.
After field-testing and careful item analysis, the final version of the test was edited.
The process of standardization is on the way, and the first analysis of the
standardization data is presented here.
1. A diagnostic test for children with arithmetical disorders

The TEDI-MATH is a test designed for the diagnostic assessment of arithmetical

disorders. It was standardized on children from the end (May) of the 2 nd grade of
the nursery school to the beginning (November) of the 3 rd grade of primary school.
But it can be used with older children suffering from mathematical disabilities for
whom learning problems going back to the first years of the primary school are
suspected. This test was not design to assess mathematical achievement nor to
discriminate between children with high levels of mathematical knowledge.
Main characteristics of the TEDI-MATH:

 It was designed to understand the nature of arithmetical disorders

observed at primary school.

 It is analytic, enlightening the main components of the arithmetical and

numerical knowledge developing between the end of the nursery school
and the beginning of the 3rd grade of primary school.

 It provides information to help children improve their mathematical

knowledge and to organize a special education program for children with
learning disabilities.

 It was designed for daily use in clinical and educational settings. It is

attractive and not too long for children with learning disabilities. It is easy
for administering and interpreting.

 It was developed according to validated models of mathematical

learning and thinking. The test organization and interpretation are related
to a strong theoretical framework.
2. A model of the numerical competency

TEDI-MATH is based on a theoretical framework with four components (figure

1):
Counting
concept
Logical
knowledge
representation
knowledge
of of theof the
procedure
numerical
number
numbersizesystem
(numerosity)

Figure 1. The concept of number integrates four categories of

knowledge.
 Logical knowledge

The book Piaget wrote with Szeminska (1941), Child's Conception of Number, is an
essential reference for practitioners who wish to understand the processes
underlying arithmetical disabilities. Piaget proposed a psychogenetic explanation of
number where logic plays the role of a normative system progressively built by the
child. He specified the logical abilities that children progressively acquire and co-
ordinate to master the concept of number. These abilities develop almost in parallel
and their integration begins before their complete mastery. The main operations are:
classification (gathering items in a set, each item being considered as a unit), and
seriation (ordering sets of items according to their size). Co-ordinating these two
operations, the children understand that the numbers are classes embedded
following an ordered relationship.
 Counting

Gelman and Gallistel (1978) stimulated a systematic study of counting behavior and
contributed to highlighting its role in the development of the concept of number.
Counting is a cultural tool used by children to know the cardinal of a set. While
counting, children learn to match the symbolic representations of number with the
representations of numerosity. Through the repeated counting, their representation of
number becomes progressively more abstract. The child who counts has to consider
all the elements of a set as equivalent units. Moreover, giving the same cardinal to
very different sets (apples, marbles, or pupils...), he constructs a more general
representation of this cardinal. According to Gelman and Gallistel (1978), counting
is a procedure based on five principles: (1) the stable-order principle according to
which the number-words have to constitute a stable sequence; (2) the one-one
principle according to which every item in a set must be assigned a unique tag; (3)
the cardinal principle according to which the last number-word pronounced
represents the cardinal of the set; (4) the abstraction principle according to which
any kind of object, taken as a unit, can be gathered to be counted; (5) the order-
irrelevant principle according to which the elements of a set can be counted in any
sequence as long as the other counting principles are respected.
 Representation of the numerosity

Research on the numerical abilities of animals and babies led psychologists to

study the pre-logical representations of number. In the area of animal
psychology, Meck and Church (1983) proposed a model where numbers are
represented analogically through an accumulator. This innate mechanism allows
animals to distinguish small quantities. Gallistel and Gelman (1992) used this
model to explain representation of number by babies. This representation comes
before the development of language. It is the starting point of the development of
the concept of number. The first representation is gradually reconstructed at a
conceptual level thanks to the counting, the one-to-one matching, and the co-
ordination of the logical operations.
 Numerical system

Representation of number is also symbolic. This representation is related to a

conventional system. In most civilizations, a numeration system was developed to
provide an economic way for representing large numbers. The most efficient
numeration systems use the clustering of a constant number of elements. Our
numeration system is a base-10 system. It is also a position system. Each digit has
a different value according to its rank from the right to the left, zero indicating a
missing digit in a rank. According to McCloskey (1992), the understanding and
the production of numerical symbols is performed by two components, each one
divided into two subsystems, one for Arab number processing and another for
verbal number processing. The transcoding procedure relates to the
transformation of Arab representation into verbal representation, and vice-versa.

When children have developed a deep understanding of number, they efficiently

perform operations on numbers. The understanding of the concept of number can
be observed through the arithmetical computations. The way children add,
subtract or multiply shows the level of development of the components described
above.
3. Subtests and tasks included in the TEDI-MATH
TEDI-MATH was developed to assess the four components described above and
the arithmetical computational abilities. Table 1 shows the six subtests of the
TEDI-MATH and the tasks included in these subtests. Some of these tasks are
divided into subtasks focusing on specific knowledge or ability. Scores are
computed for items, subtasks, tasks, groups of tasks and subtests. Consequently,
the test provides scores at different levels of the arithmetical and numerical
competency, allowing the clinician a rough or an in-depth interpretation of the
results. The interpretation can be restricted to a first screening of an arithmetical
disorder, or focused on the specific procedures involved in each task.

As the test was designed to test children until the beginning of the 3 rd grade,
division tasks were not included in the test because this operation is only taught at
this school level. Moreover, written computations were not included either in the
test because they rely on algorithms and do not require a true understanding of
numbers. Consequently, only mental computations were included in the TEDI-
MATH.
 Table 1. Subtests and tasks of the TEDI-MATH.
Subtest Task
1. Knowledge of the number-word sequence • Counting as far as possible
• Count forward to an upper bound
• Count forward from a lower bound
• Count forward from a lower bound to an upper bound
• Count backward
2. Counting sets of items • Counting linear pattern of items
• Counting random pattern of items
• Counting a heterogeneous set of items
• Functional use of counting
3. Knowledge of the numerical system • Arab numerical system
• Oral numerical system
• Base-t en system
• Transcoding
 Table 1. (Continued).
Subtest
4. Logical operations on numbers
5. Arithmetical operations
6. Estimation of the size
Task
• Seriation of numbers
• Classification of numbers
• Conservation of numbers
• Inclusion of numbers
• Additive decomposition of numbers
• Presented on pictures
• Presented in arithmetical format
• Addition
• Subtraction
• Multiplication
• Presented in verbal format
• Understanding of the operation properties
• Comparison of dot sets
• Comparison of the distance between numbers
4. Standardization procedure
The TEDI-MATH was standardized on two samples: a French sample (250 children)
and a Belgian sample (125 French-speaking children). The children of the two
samples were from the 2nd grade of nursery school to the 3rd grade of primary school.
As they were learning new knowledge and procedures during the school year, two
measures were taken in each grade, one in November and the other in May. The
testing schedule is summarised in Table 2. Only the results of the French sample are
presented here. This sample was composed of five subgroups of 50 children. Each
subgroup included 25 boys and 25 girls and was representative of the French
population according to the district category and the socio-economic status.

Children were excluded from the standardization sample if they met one of the
following criteria:

 Repeating one or more years ;

 Not French-speakers ;
 Mental retardation according the DSM-IV criteria ;
 Severely impaired vision or hearing ;
 Attention-deficit/hyperactive disorders according the DSM-IV criteria.
 Table 2. Standardization sample of the TEDI-MATH.

School Age November May N

year 2000 2001
Nursery 2nd grade 4-5-years - 50 50
school
3rd grade 5-6-years 50 50 50

Primary 1st grade 6-7-years 50 50 50

school
2nd grade 7-8-years 50 50 50

3rd grade 8-9-years 50 - 50

Total 250
5. First results
Table 3 shows the mean percentage of items of each subtest or group of tasks
which the children correctly answered during the November 2000 testing. Some
subtests were not proposed to the younger children because previous trials had
shown that most of these children were unable to answer the easiest items of these
subtests. These subtests are indicated by the mark “-“.

In a majority of subtests, a ceiling effect is observed from the 2 nd grade of primary

school. At the beginning of the 2nd grade, weaknesses are only observed in the
subtraction and multiplication items presented in arithmetical format, and in the
items assessing the understanding of operation proprieties. This ceiling effect was
expected because the test is a diagnostic tool that only discriminates among
children with learning disabilities, and not among children with high levels of
mathematical achievement.
Table 3. Mean percentage of items correctly answered for
each school year.

Subtest Nursery School Primary School

3rd grade 1st grade 2nd grade 3rd grade
Knowledge of the number-word 40.5 69.0 96.1 100
sequence
Counting sets of items 78.9 89.2 93.6 100
Knowledge of the numerical system
• Arab numerical system 36.2 77.5 98.0 99.9
• Oral numerical system 28.5 66.4 94.9 99.0
• Base-ten system - - 78.6 92.4
• Transcoding - 27.6 90.4 99.5
Logical operations on numbers 12.5 64.3 79.8 85.7
 Table 3. (Continued).

Subtest Nursery School Primary School

3rd grade 1st grade 2nd grade 3rd grade
Arithmetical operations
• Presented on picture 78,0 96,7 100 100
• Presented in arithmetical format
• Addition - 53,3 88,5 91,8
• Subtraction - 21,7 61,6 73,3
• Multiplication - - 33,1 78,2
• Presented in verbal format - 58,8 79,6 91,5
• Understanding of the operation - - 35,7 61,3
properties
Estimation of the size 31,9 85,0 93,1 96,4
References
Gallistel, C.R. & Gelman, R. (1992). Preverbal and verbal counting and computation.
Cognition, 44, 43-74.
Gelman, R. & Gallistel, C.R. (1978). The child’s understanding of number. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Grégoire, J. & Vanieuwenhoven, C. (1995). Learning to count at nursery school and at
primary school: toward an instrument for diagnostic assessment. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 10, 61-75.
McCloskey, M. (1992). Cognitive mechanisms in numerical processing: Evidence from
acquired dyscalculia. Cognition, 44, 107-157.
Meck, W.H. & Church, R.M. (1983). A mode control model of counting and timing
processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 9, 320-
334.
Piaget, J. & Szeminska, A. (1941). La genèse du nombre chez l’enfant. Neuchâtel :
Delachaux et Niestlé, (7st ed., 1991).

Correspondance should be addressed to Jacques Grégoire, Faculty of Psychology, 10

Place du Cardinal Mercier, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
E-mail: jacques.gregoire@psp.ucl.ac.be