View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Field Independence Associates with Mathematics and Science Performance in 5- to 10-Year-Olds after Accounting for Domain-General Factors

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Field Independence Associates with Mathematics and Science Performance in 5- to 10-Year-Olds after Accounting for Domain-General Factors
Language: English
Authors: Morris, Su (ORCID 0000-0002-6804-9682), Farran, Emily K., Dumontheil, Iroise
Source: Mind, Brain, and Education. Nov 2019 13(4):268-278.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2019
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Cognitive Style, Age Differences, Cognitive Processes, Mathematics Tests, Intelligence, Verbal Ability, Short Term Memory, Science Tests, Academic Achievement, Predictor Variables, Correlation, Elementary School Students, Thinking Skills, Tests
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Childrens Embedded Figures Test
DOI: 10.1111/mbe.12214
ISSN: 1751-2271
Abstract: Field independence describes the extent to which individuals are influenced by context when trying to identify embedded targets. It associates with cognitive functioning and is a predictor of academic achievement. However, little is known about the neural and cognitive underpinnings of field independence that lead to these associations. Here, we investigated behavioral associations between two measures of field independence (Children's Embedded Figures Test [CEFT] and Design Organization Test [DOT]) and performance on tests of mathematics (reasoning and written arithmetic) and science (reasoning and scientific inquiry) in 135 children aged 5-10 years. There were strong associations between field independence and mathematics and science, which were largely explained by individual differences in age, intelligence, and verbal working memory. However, regression analyses indicated that after controlling for these variables, the CEFT explained additional variance on the mathematical reasoning and science tests, whereas the DOT predicted unique variance on the written arithmetic test.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2019
Accession Number: EJ1234989
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGmfhcKSzuVWIh1OXipCt3pAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEO8e0mm9eIr5RhorgIBEICBm_m1UGgsQfHUEJv9oKfv7oUiNyzvB_3kApTGmHntZo3z7ZYyG3NT-LkoSCdnMMKcRskmSdlfhBVb_wpYJeuKfrVkdryDd482B7PCAiHu2Ug6jiu0_HWRZz4grENUaMSIVOWY9cNqdGkTiiQu8dM4i2dy2q0_BIXxHockfE3QrnLRLUEs9pjaZbG16zGSteiCCsC8HUzPyUcvXZAm
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0139742740;[309x]01nov.19;2019Nov21.02:33;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0139742740-1">Field Independence Associates with Mathematics and Science Performance in 5‐ to 10‐Year‐Olds after Accounting for Domain‐General Factors </title> <p>Field independence describes the extent to which individuals are influenced by context when trying to identify embedded targets. It associates with cognitive functioning and is a predictor of academic achievement. However, little is known about the neural and cognitive underpinnings of field independence that lead to these associations. Here, we investigated behavioral associations between two measures of field independence (Children's Embedded Figures Test [CEFT] and Design Organization Test [DOT]) and performance on tests of mathematics (reasoning and written arithmetic) and science (reasoning and scientific inquiry) in 135 children aged 5–10 years. There were strong associations between field independence and mathematics and science, which were largely explained by individual differences in age, intelligence, and verbal working memory. However, regression analyses indicated that after controlling for these variables, the CEFT explained additional variance on the mathematical reasoning and science tests, whereas the DOT predicted unique variance on the written arithmetic test.</p> <p>Field independence (FI) is the extent to which individuals are able to separate a target from its context. Positive associations between FI and academic success have been found in mathematics in children aged 6–10 years (Buriel, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref1">12</reflink>]) and adolescents aged 12–14 years (Alamolhodaei, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>]; Azari, Radmehr, & Mohajer, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref3">5</reflink>]), and in science in adolescents aged 13–16 years (Tinajero & Paramo, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref4">58</reflink>]) and 17–18 years (Leo‐Rhynie, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref5">36</reflink>]). However, little is known regarding the specific cognitive processes that underlie these associations with mathematics and science, or whether these relationships are mediated by individual differences in general cognitive ability and executive functions. The dual aims of this study were to examine the domain‐general factors implicated in FI, and to investigate how different FI tasks associate with performance on mathematics and science in primary school children, considering overlapping variance with age, general intelligence (IQ), working memory, and inhibitory control.</p> <hd id="AN0139742740-2">Measures of FI</hd> <p>FI is usually measured using a version of the Embedded Figures Test (EFT; Witkin, Ottman, Raskin, & Karp, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref6">68</reflink>]), or the Block Design task (Wechsler, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref7">62</reflink>]). In the EFT, participants must locate a simple target shape within a complex stimulus. When a target is embedded within a context, it becomes hidden because of shared lines, overlapping colors, and distracting patterns (De‐Wit, Huygelier, Van der Hallen, Chamberlain, & Wagemans, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref8">17</reflink>]; Poirel, Pineau, Jobard, & Mellet, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref9">48</reflink>]; Van der Hallen, Chamberlain, De‐Wit, & Wagemans, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref10">60</reflink>]). This contrasts with visual search paradigms where a target is surrounded by distractor elements but is not embedded within a context (Wolfe & Horowitz, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref11">70</reflink>]) and matching tasks where a target shape has to be identified among a number of distinct, nonoverlapping choices (Li, Wu, Zhu, & O'Boyle, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref12">37</reflink>]). The process of identifying the target within its context is known as disembedding. In the Block Design task, participants must partition a pattern into a grid of squares, and then match each segment of the grid with a choice of simple designs. The pattern becomes harder to segment when the design spreads over a grid boundary, as the large‐scale pattern has to be overcome to identify the individual elements. This process is known as segmenting (Schorr, Bower, & Kiernan, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref13">55</reflink>]; Shah & Frith, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref14">56</reflink>]). It differs from disembedding because it is guided by fixed gridlines, whereas disembedding involves a search process to identify the boundaries of the target. Despite these differences, in a study with university students, both tasks loaded onto a single factor (Milne & Szczerbinski, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref15">43</reflink>]). In both tasks, individuals with greater accuracy or faster reaction times are described as being field independent, and those with lower accuracy or slower responses are described as being field dependent.</p> <p>Performance on the EFT has been shown to associate with global and local processing (Poirel et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref16">48</reflink>]), spatial thinking (Rémy & Gilles, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref17">51</reflink>]), and orientation abilities (Boccia, Piccardi, Di Marco, Pizzamiglio, & Guariglia, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref18">9</reflink>]), as well as general cognitive abilities (Flexer & Roberge, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref19">22</reflink>]; Miyake, Witzki, & Emerson, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref20">45</reflink>]). This has resulted in a lack of clarity about what FI represents (Evans, Richardson, & Waring, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref21">20</reflink>]). The literature sometimes describes FI in perceptual terms, where success is related to overcoming the Gestalt principles of proximity, similarity, and good continuation (De‐Wit et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref22">17</reflink>]; Van der Hallen et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref23">60</reflink>]). However, it is also described in cognitive terms, as the extent to which individuals are able to analyze and restructure a given stimulus to solve a problem that requires details to be decontextualized (Pithers, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref24">47</reflink>]; Rémy & Gilles, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref25">51</reflink>]; Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, & Cox, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref26">69</reflink>]). In both the EFT and Block Design tasks, the visual stimulus needs to be reinterpreted by being parsed into smaller elements. It is, therefore, likely that both perceptual and cognitive processes determine an individual's FI.</p> <p>There is limited understanding regarding the neural correlates underpinning FI. There is evidence for greater activation in the frontoparietal cortex in tasks involving disembedding in adolescents aged 12–16 years (Manjaly et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref27">40</reflink>]), as well as in adults (Manjaly et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref28">39</reflink>]; Walter & Dassonville, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref29">61</reflink>]). However, the precise cortical locations vary between studies depending on both the experimental task and comparison conditions. The hemispheric lateralization of activations also varies by task, with left posterior parietal activations in easier tasks (Manjaly et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref30">39</reflink>]) but bilateral activations in more challenging tasks (Walter & Dassonville, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref31">61</reflink>]). Left hemispheric activation may reflect local visual processing (Manjaly et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref32">39</reflink>]; Weissman & Woldorff, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref33">66</reflink>]) during disembedding. In more complex tasks, activation in the right temporoparietal junction, precuneus, and insula may reflect the involvement of executive control in co‐ordinating bottom‐up and top‐down processing (Walter & Dassonville, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref34">61</reflink>]). This supports the suggestion that both perceptual and cognitive processes are involved when completing FI tasks.</p> <p>Research has consistently shown a developmental change from field dependence to FI in children and adolescents aged 3–17 years (Amador‐Campos & Kirchner‐Nebot, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref35">4</reflink>]; Busch, Watson, Brinkley, Howard, & Nelson, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref36">13</reflink>]; Cairns, Malone, Johnston, & Cammock, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref37">14</reflink>]; Glynn & Stoner, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref38">24</reflink>]; Goodenough & Eagle, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref39">25</reflink>]; Witkin, Goodenough, & Karp, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref40">67</reflink>]), despite variations in the test stimuli used and task differences in memory load. Gender differences have also been identified, with males achieving higher accuracy than females in the EFT in primary school‐age children (Amador‐Campos & Kirchner‐Nebot, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref41">4</reflink>]; Cairns et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref42">14</reflink>]; Jantan, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref43">30</reflink>]), adolescents aged 11–14 years (Flexer & Roberge, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref44">22</reflink>]), and adults (Witkin et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref45">69</reflink>]), which is suggestive of higher FI in males than in females.</p> <hd id="AN0139742740-3">Association with Academic Success</hd> <p>Mathematics and science both involve pattern detection and analysis, as well as the application of concepts across many contexts (Bressan, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref46">11</reflink>]; Wei, Yu, Shattuck, McCracken, & Blackorby, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref47">65</reflink>]), e.g. sharing marbles between three friends and dividing a cake into three equal pieces, or considering evaporation of water from a puddle and from clothes on a washing line. In addition, an understanding of the relationships between wholes and parts is important for mathematical tasks (Baroody, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref48">6</reflink>]) and for science understanding (Project 2061, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref49">49</reflink>]). This suggests that an ability to focus on details and to decontextualize information may be advantageous to mathematics and science performance.</p> <p>A consistent picture has emerged of a positive association between FI, as measured by the Group EFT, and academic success in children and adolescents, particularly in mathematics, using general (Alamolhodaei, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref50">2</reflink>]; Azari et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref51">5</reflink>]; Buriel, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref52">12</reflink>]; Roberge & Flexer, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref53">53</reflink>]; Tinajero & Paramo, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref54">58</reflink>]; Tinajero, Páramo, European, June, & Fernanda, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref55">59</reflink>]) or specific measures. In a study with university students, Zhang ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref56">71</reflink>]) found that FI only associated with the geometry subsections of their mathematics measure, while other studies found associations with word problems in adolescents (Alamolhodaei, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref57">2</reflink>]; Azari et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref58">5</reflink>]). The shared visuospatial processing demands of geometry problems and FI tasks may underlie their associations. In contrast, word problems require mathematical information to be taken out of the "real‐world" context, and may, therefore, be related to FI tasks requiring disembedding.</p> <p>Fewer studies have investigated associations between FI and science achievement. Higher EFT scores (reflecting greater FI) have been achieved by those studying science compared with nonscientific disciplines at the undergraduate level (Billington, Baron‐Cohen, & Wheelwright, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref59">8</reflink>]; Derussy & Futch, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref60">18</reflink>]) and in adolescents aged between 13 and 18 years (Leo‐Rhynie, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref61">36</reflink>]; Tinajero & Paramo, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref62">58</reflink>]), with possible differences detected according to topic, e.g., geology being more associated with FI than evolution in undergraduates (Lawson, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref63">34</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0139742740-4">FI, IQ, and Executive Functions</hd> <p>Although there is evidence for a positive relationship between FI and academic achievement, there is limited understanding about the cognitive processes that underpin this association. A number of studies have reported a positive association between FI and IQ (e.g. Flexer & Roberge, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref64">22</reflink>]; Swyter & Michael, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref65">57</reflink>]), and importantly that FI still explained performance in mathematics after controlling for IQ (Azari et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref66">5</reflink>]; Satterly, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref67">54</reflink>]; Tinajero & Paramo, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref68">58</reflink>]). In contrast, a recent study found no group‐level relationship between FI and visuospatial IQ in a sample of university students (Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref69">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>Associations between FI and academic achievement may also be mediated by shared associations with executive functions, particularly working memory (WM) and inhibitory control (IC). WM describes the fixed, limited capacity to briefly hold and manipulate information in mind to complete a task (Gathercole, Pickering, Knight, & Stegmann, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref70">23</reflink>]). IC refers to the ability to ignore irrelevant distractors or to stop a prepotent but incorrect response (Miyake et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref71">44</reflink>]). There is substantial development of IC in preschool, whereas the development of WM is more protracted (Best & Miller, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref72">7</reflink>]). To successfully complete the EFT, participants have to hold the target shape in mind, while they monitor the complex figure and ignore distractor shapes (Evans et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref73">20</reflink>]; Jia, Zhang, & Li, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref74">31</reflink>]). Research has identified a positive association in adults between EFT performance and verbal WM (Guisande, Soledad Rodríguez, Almeida, Tinajero, & Fernanda Páramo, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref75">26</reflink>]), visuospatial WM (Miyake et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref76">45</reflink>]), and IC (Imanaka, Kakigi, & Nakata, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref77">29</reflink>]). Furthermore, in preschool children, better performance on the Block Design task associated with higher verbal WM scores (Alloway & Alloway, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref78">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>This association between executive functions and FI is supported by evidence from neuroimaging. Adults completing the EFT showed activation in a wide network of brain regions including bilateral parietal areas and right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, interpreted as reflecting the involvement of visuospatial WM (Ring et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref79">52</reflink>]). A separate study in children aged 7–12 years similarly showed bilateral parietal activation but dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation was located in the left hemisphere, which could reflect greater use of verbal WM strategies (Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref80">35</reflink>]). Consistent with recruitment of IC to suppress the global form (Lux et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref81">38</reflink>]), higher performance on the EFT in adults associated with greater activation in the inferior frontal gyrus and insula (Walter & Dassonville, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref82">61</reflink>]), and in children, activation in the anterior cingulate cortex was observed during the EFT but not during the control matching task (Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref83">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>To summarize, research has identified a positive association between FI and academic measures. However, there is limited understanding about the underlying processes that explain this association, and whether these explain any changing associations with FI through development. The first aim of this study was to explore the extent to which performance on FI tasks can be explained by variation in age, IQ, WM, and IC in childhood, and, therefore, gain a clearer understanding of FI in terms of its underlying processes. We predicted increased FI with age, and that all three of these aspects of cognition would predict FI, with a greater link with verbal WM than visuospatial WM (Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref84">35</reflink>]). The second aim was to establish whether FI associated with achievement on mathematics and science tests, and whether these associations are explained by individual differences in age, IQ, WM, and IC. We predicted that FI would associate with higher mathematics and science scores, and that much of this relationship would be explained by overlapping variance associated with IQ and executive functions. We also predicted that mathematical reasoning and science would more closely associate with disembedding than segmenting because of the need to separate concepts from the context of the question. Finally, as executive function skills improve considerably during the primary school years (Best & Miller, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref85">7</reflink>]), and as the demands of the mathematics and science curricula also change, we were interested in whether observed associations between FI, executive functions, and mathematics and science achievement differed between school Years (see Supporting Information for these analyses). To test this, we collected data from children in three different primary school Years.</p> <hd id="AN0139742740-5">METHOD</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0139742740-6">Participants</hd> <p>The study was approved by the local ethics committee. Participants were recruited from a single community state primary school. Parents were given the opportunity to opt‐out, and all children provided verbal consent to take part in the study. The study was cross‐sectional in design, with 45 children in Year 1 (5–6 years), 45 children in Year 3 (7–8 years), and 45 children in Year 5 (9–10 years); a total of 135 children. This enabled age group‐level comparisons to be made across children who were receiving formal mathematics and science education, and for whom considerable developmental changes in domain‐general abilities and FI were expected. The gender split in the different age groups was marginally nonuniform, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref86">1</reflink>) = 5.75, <emph>p</emph> =.056 (Table), and reflected the gender distribution in the school itself. The inclusion criterion was that participants did not have a statement of Special Educational Needs and Disabilities.</p> <p>Participant Demographics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th>Year 1</th><th>Year 3</th><th>Year 5</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Number of participants</td><td>45</td><td>45</td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td>Number of male:female</td><td>16:29</td><td>27:18</td><td>24:21</td></tr><tr><td>Average age in months (SD)</td><td>68.62 (3.26)</td><td>91.84 (3.47)</td><td>115.44 (3.62)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0139742740-7">Design and Procedure</hd> <p>Testing took place at the participants' primary school during lesson times. This was part of a larger test battery which the children completed over three or four sessions. Each task was explained to the participants immediately prior to them attempting the activity. All tasks began with a practice block, which participants were required to pass before proceeding with the experimental trials. The scores on the various tasks were not standardized; age or year was included as a variable in the analyses. Computerized stimuli were presented via MATLAB (R2010b), using the Cogent toolbox (<ulink href="http://www.vislab.ucl.ac.uk/cogent%5f2000.php">http://www.vislab.ucl.ac.uk/cogent%5f2000.php</ulink>), on a 12‐in. Dell laptop.</p> <hd id="AN0139742740-8">FI Tasks</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0139742740-9">Child Embedded Figures Test (Karp & Konstadt ,)</hd> <p>In order for accuracy data to be comparable across all the participants, the same subset of 13 images was presented to all participants. The stimuli were selected according to the accuracy data from a study in primary school children (Amador‐Campos & Kirchner‐Nebot, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref87">4</reflink>]) to include a range of difficulty levels across both target shapes. The target shape was visible throughout the task to reduce the influence of WM (Booth, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref88">10</reflink>]; Huygelier, Van der Hallen, Wagemans, de‐Wit, & Chamberlain, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref89">28</reflink>]). Participants indicated that they had found the embedded shape by pointing to it. Participants had a maximum of 30 s to respond, consistent with some other studies with child participants (e.g. Pellicano, Maybery, Durkin, & Maley, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref90">46</reflink>]). A percentage accuracy score was calculated. Reliability of the Children's Embedded Figures Test (CEFT) is between 0.83 and 0.90 (Karp et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref91">32</reflink>]); however, no reliability data are available for the version used in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0139742740-10">Design Organization Test (Killgore & Gogel ,)</hd> <p>This is a pen‐and‐paper version of the Block Design subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS‐III; Wechsler, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref92">63</reflink>]). Participants had to identify which numbered pieces fitted together to create a larger pattern, and then write those numbers in an empty grid. Based on a pilot study, participants were given 3 min to complete as much of the sheet as possible, rather than the 2 min allocated for adult participants (Killgore & Gogel, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref93">33</reflink>]). A total score was calculated by counting the number of correctly identified small square. Reliability of the Design Organization Test (DOT) in adults is excellent (<emph>r</emph> = 0.91, Killgore & Gogel, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref94">33</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0139742740-11">Cognitive Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0139742740-12">General Intelligence</hd> <p>General visuospatial ability was measured using Raven's Colored Progressive Matrices (RCPM; Raven, Raven & Court, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref95">50</reflink>]), which has a reliability of 0.82 (Carlson & Jensen, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref96">15</reflink>]). General verbal ability was measured by assessing children's receptive vocabulary using the British Picture Vocabulary Scale III (BPVS III; Dunn, Dunn, Styles & Sewell, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref97">19</reflink>]). BPVS‐III norms for individuals aged 3–16 years indicate excellent reliability of 0.91. A mean general intelligence (IQ) measure was calculated by averaging z‐transformed raw scores on the RCPM and BPVS.</p> <hd id="AN0139742740-13">Working Memory</hd> <p>Visuospatial WM (VSWM) was measured using a computerized backwards spatial span task. The task used a 3 × 3 grid of lily pads where participants used a mouse to retrace in reverse order a frog's sequence of jumps (Figure a). Verbal WM (VWM) was measured using a backwards digit span task. For both WM tasks, children began the experimental trials with a sequence length of two. Each sequence length was repeated four times, and each new block increased in sequence length by one. If children made two or more errors in that block, the task stopped. The score on these tasks was the total number of sequences correctly recalled. These measures were kept separate to enable identification of any differential effects of verbal and visuospatial WM. Test/retest correlations partialling out Year, which were calculated from a separate study where 300+ Years 3 and 5 children completed the tasks at 3–5.5 month interval, were <emph>r</emph> = 0.536 for the VWM task and <emph>r</emph> = 0.357 for the VSWM task.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/309X/01nov19/mbe12214-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="mbe12214-fig-0001.jpg" title="(a) Example sequence from the visuospatial working memory backwards span task. Children responded by clicking on the lily pads to retrace the sequence of jumps made by the frog, in reverse order. (b) Example stimuli from the Animal Size Stroop Task. Children responded by pressing letter keys to identify the big animal in real life." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0139742740-15">Inhibitory Control</hd> <p>Semantic IC was measured using a computerized Animal Size Stroop task (Merkley, Thompson, & Scerif, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref98">41</reflink>]). Participants were asked to identify which of a pair of animals was the largest in real life by pressing the C‐ or M‐key on a keyboard using their left or right hand respectively. Trials could either be congruent, where the relative size of the animal images matched the relative size in real life, or they could be incongruent and require children to inhibit the size of the image (Figure b). Each participant completed two blocks of 36 trials, using a pool of four large and four small animals with an equal number of congruent and incongruent trials. Children were asked to respond as quickly, but as accurately, as they could. An IC score was calculated as the percentage difference between congruent and incongruent RT trials, with positive scores denoting a greater RT cost of incongruent trials. Spearman–Brown split‐half analysis was 0.379.</p> <hd id="AN0139742740-16">Mathematics and Science Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0139742740-17">Mathematics</hd> <p>Mathematics ability was assessed using two subtests of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test‐II (WIAT‐II; Wechsler, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref99">64</reflink>]). Mathematical Reasoning is verbally administered and tests reasoning through word problems; Numerical Operations is a pen‐and‐paper test of counting and computation (Meyer, Salimpoor, Wu, Geary, & Menon, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref100">42</reflink>]). As they assess different mathematical skills, and therefore may differentially relate to disembedding and segmenting, the subtest scores were kept as separate variables in the analyses. The standard testing and scoring procedures of the WIAT‐II were used, where the starting point of the task was determined by age, and trials continued until participants made errors in six consecutive questions. A total score was derived from the number of correct answers attempted plus a score for the easier questions not attempted. Test/retest reliability ranges from 0.85 to 0.98 for both subtests (Wechsler, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref101">64</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0139742740-18">Science</hd> <p>In the absence of a suitable standardized test, science ability was assessed using a novel test designed for this study, which can be viewed here: https://osf.io/d58ht/. Questions were based on content from the current UK National Curriculum and were designed to test scientific reasoning and scientific inquiry. To ensure the task was representative of science learning in Years 1, 3, and 5, a question was included from every topic in the curriculum for those Years, with the exception of human development in Year 5. Similar to the BPVS, participants within the same Year started at the same level, but would then attempt more challenging or easier questions depending on their accuracy scores. Each question, which sometimes included two‐part or multi‐answer questions, was worth two marks. A score of eight or more out of 10 on a level enabled progression to the next level; a lower score led children to complete the lower difficulty level until they scored at least eight. Lower levels, which were not attempted, were credited with full marks. The reliability of this novel task was measured by running a split‐half analysis in each Year group separately. The Pearson correlations between the scores were: Year 1: 0.760; Year 3: 0.870; and Year 5: 0.798.</p> <hd id="AN0139742740-19">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0139742740-20">Age and Gender Effects</hd> <p>Correlation analyses revealed there were significant linear associations with age in months for all measures (Table). Previous research has identified an effect of gender on FI. Here, analyses of covariances (ANCOVAs) with gender as the independent variable and age in months as the covariate showed no gender main effects or interactions (all <emph>p'</emph>s > .140). Gender was, therefore, not included in further analyses. Additional analyses testing for potential nonlinear differences between years are presented in Supporting Information.</p> <p>Pearson's Correlations Between Performance on Children's Embedded Figures Test (CEFT), Design Organization Test (DOT), IQ, Working Memory (WM), and Inhibitory Control (IC) Measures, and Mathematics and Science Tests Above the Diagonal, and Partial Correlations Controlling for Age in Months Below the Diagonal</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th align="left">CEFT</th><th align="center">DOT</th><th align="center">Mathematical reasoning</th><th align="center">Numerical operations</th><th align="center">Science</th><th align="center">IQ</th><th align="center">Visuospatial WM</th><th align="center">Verbal WM</th><th align="center">IC</th><th align="center">Age</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>CEFT</td><td align="center">—</td><td>0.624<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.694<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.641<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.650<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.667<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.608<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.587<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>−0.120</td><td>0.609<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td></tr><tr><td>DOT</td><td>0.323<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td align="center">—</td><td>0.749<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.741<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.724<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.748<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.691<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.568<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>−0.146</td><td>0.744<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td></tr><tr><td>Math. Reas.</td><td>0.422<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.340<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td align="center">—</td><td>0.858<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.832<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.875<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.709<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.716<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td> −0.189*</td><td>0.842<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td></tr><tr><td>Num. Op.</td><td>0.326<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.370<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.581<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td align="center">—</td><td>0.773<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.778<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.678<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.658<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>−0.167</td><td>0.793<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td></tr><tr><td>Science</td><td>0.307<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td> 0.236**</td><td>0.377<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td> 0.280**</td><td align="center">—</td><td>0.828<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.637<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.629<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td> −0.172*</td><td>0.869<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td></tr><tr><td>IQ</td><td>0.370<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.363<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.600<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.371<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.413<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td align="center">—</td><td>0.674<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.696<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td> −0.235<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.817<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td></tr><tr><td>Visuospatial WM</td><td>0.320<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.358<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.312<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td> 0.283**</td><td>0.083</td><td> 0.250**</td><td align="center">—</td><td>0.632<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>−0.150</td><td>0.699<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td></tr><tr><td>Verbal WM</td><td>0.336<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.202*</td><td>0.457<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.346<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td> 0.230**</td><td>0.417<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td>0.353<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td align="center">—</td><td> −0.277<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td>0.621<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td></tr><tr><td>IC</td><td>0.028</td><td>−0.040</td><td>0.012</td><td>0.028</td><td>0.060</td><td>−0.082</td><td>0.017</td><td>−0.174<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td align="center">—</td><td>−0.232<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>. Significant effects are highlighted in bold.</p> <ulist> <item>2 * <emph>p</emph> < .05.</item> <item>3 ** <emph>p</emph> < .01.</item> <item>4 *** <emph>p</emph> < .001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0139742740-21">Predictors of FI</hd> <p>To determine how much variance in the FI measures could be explained by age, IQ, WM, and IC, multiple regressions were run with CEFT accuracy and DOT scores as dependent variables, and age in months, IQ, VSWM, VWM, and IC as independent variables (Table). The models explained a significant amount of variance in each task. Individual differences in CEFT performance across Year groups were driven by general cognitive ability (IQ) and VSWM rather than age. In contrast, individual differences in DOT performance were driven by a combination of IQ, VSWM, and age.</p> <p>Hierarchical Regressions with Children's Embedded Figures Test (CEFT) Accuracy and Design Organization Test (DOT) Score as Dependent Variables and Age, IQ, Working Memory (WM), and Inhibitory Control (IC) as Independent Variables</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th align="center">CEFT accuracy</th><th align="center">DOT score</th></tr><tr><th /><th align="center"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Age in months</td><td>0.077</td><td>.501</td><td>0.287</td><td>.004</td></tr><tr><td>IQ</td><td>0.351</td><td>.004</td><td>0.351</td><td>.001</td></tr><tr><td>Visuospatial WM</td><td>0.214</td><td>.023</td><td>0.268</td><td>.001</td></tr><tr><td>Verbal WM</td><td>0.177</td><td>.056</td><td>−0.013</td><td>.868</td></tr><tr><td>IC</td><td>0.062</td><td>.341</td><td>0.039</td><td>.472</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td>0.508</td><td><.001 </td><td>0.648</td><td><.001 </td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 <emph>Note</emph>. Significant effects are highlighted in bold.</p> <hd id="AN0139742740-22">FI and Achievement in Mathematics and Science</hd> <p>Correlational analyses indicated that there were strong positive associations between FI, mathematics, and science, which remained significant when age in months was partialled out (Table). As all FI, mathematics and science achievement measures showed strong correlations with IQ and WM, and weak or nonsignificant correlations with IC (Table), a series of multiple regressions were run to establish whether the observed associations between FI and mathematics and science were because of overlapping variance with the cognitive variables (Table). Age in months, IQ, VSWM, VWM, and IC were entered first (Model 1). Then, CEFT accuracy or DOT score were added to establish whether they significantly predicted additional variance (Models 2A and 2B). Model 2A indicated that CEFT accuracy explained a significant amount of additional unique variance for Mathematical Reasoning and science achievement. In contrast, the DOT score in Model 2B explained additional variance in Numerical Operations only. IQ and age were also significant predictors in the models, with VWM predicting performance on Mathematical Reasoning, as well as Numerical Operations in Model 2B only. Additional analyses assessed whether associations differed between Year groups (see Supporting Information).</p> <p>Multiple Regressions to Identify Unique Predictors of Variance in Field Independence</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Mathematical Reasoning</th><th align="center">Numerical Operations</th><th align="center">Science</th></tr><tr><th /><th align="center"><italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Model 1</td><td>0.835</td><td>—</td><td><.001</td><td>0.706</td><td>—</td><td><.001  </td><td>0.801</td><td>—</td><td><.001  </td></tr><tr><td>Model 2A</td><td>0.841</td><td>—</td><td><.001</td><td>0.712</td><td>—</td><td><.001  </td><td>0.807</td><td>—</td><td><.001  </td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>—</td><td>0.319</td><td><.001</td><td>—</td><td>0.389</td><td><.001</td><td>—</td><td>0.583</td><td><.001</td></tr><tr><td>IQ</td><td>—</td><td>0.414</td><td><.001</td><td>—</td><td>0.233</td><td>.015</td><td>—</td><td>0.297</td><td><.001</td></tr><tr><td>VSWM</td><td>—</td><td>0.057</td><td>  .297</td><td>—</td><td>0.101</td><td>.171</td><td>—</td><td>−0.062</td><td>.305</td></tr><tr><td>VWM</td><td>—</td><td>0.141</td><td>  .009</td><td>—</td><td>0.137</td><td>.057</td><td>—</td><td>0.046</td><td>.429</td></tr><tr><td>IC</td><td>—</td><td>0.043</td><td>  .249</td><td>—</td><td>0.044</td><td>.377</td><td>—</td><td>0.050</td><td>.225</td></tr><tr><td>CEFT</td><td>—</td><td>0.111</td><td>.029</td><td>—</td><td>0.112</td><td>.100</td><td>—</td><td> 0.113</td><td>.044</td></tr><tr><td>Model 2B</td><td>0.837</td><td>—</td><td><.001</td><td>0.721</td><td>—</td><td><.001  </td><td>0.803</td><td>—</td><td><.001  </td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>—</td><td>0.305</td><td><.001</td><td>—</td><td>0.338</td><td><.001</td><td>—</td><td>0.568</td><td><.001</td></tr><tr><td>IQ</td><td>—</td><td>0.426</td><td><.001</td><td>—</td><td>0.199</td><td>.036</td><td>—</td><td>0.308</td><td><.001</td></tr><tr><td>VSWM</td><td>—</td><td>0.060</td><td>  .288</td><td>—</td><td>0.069</td><td>.351</td><td>—</td><td>−0.059</td><td>.339</td></tr><tr><td>VWM</td><td>—</td><td>0.161</td><td>  .003</td><td>—</td><td>0.159</td><td>.023</td><td>—</td><td>0.067</td><td>.249</td></tr><tr><td>IC</td><td>—</td><td>0.047</td><td>  .214</td><td>—</td><td>0.043</td><td>.383</td><td>—</td><td>0.054</td><td>.196</td></tr><tr><td>DOT</td><td>—</td><td>0.077</td><td>  .202</td><td>—</td><td>0.208</td><td>.009</td><td>—</td><td>0.082</td><td>.218</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>6 <emph>Note</emph>. Dependent variables were Mathematical Reasoning, Numerical Operations and science scores; age in months, IQ, verbal working memory (VWM), visuospatial working memory (VSWM), and inhibitory control (IC) were entered in the first model, and then Children's Embedded Figures Test (CEFT) (A) or Design Organization Test (DOT) (B) in the second model. Significant CEFT and DOT effects are highlighted in bold.</p> <hd id="AN0139742740-23">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>Higher FI scores associate with higher achievement in mathematics and science (e.g. Alamolhodaei, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref102">2</reflink>]; Buriel, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref103">12</reflink>]; Tinajero & Paramo, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref104">58</reflink>]). However, as studies rarely investigate the influence of covariates such as IQ and executive functions, the cognitive processes underpinning these relationships have not been fully explored, particularly in primary school age children. This study found strong, positive correlations between disembedding and segmenting measures and mathematics and science tests, in line with previous research. After accounting for variance associated with age, IQ and executive functions, individual differences in FI explained further variance in mathematics and science scores.</p> <p>One aim of this study was to gain a clearer picture of the predictors of individual differences in two tasks measuring FI in children aged 5–10 years, as well as of the correlations observed between these two tasks. After controlling for age, there was only a moderate correlation between the two FI tasks, which may result from the contrasting processes (disembedding and segmenting) involved in the separation of the target from its context in these two tasks. Higher IQ and higher VSWM scores were the only significant predictors of CEFT scores. In contrast, individual differences in DOT scores were explained by IQ, VSWM, and age. In the CEFT, participants have to hold a single target image in mind while they search for a match in the complex figure, a process that likely recruits VSWM. Indeed neuroimaging research has identified activations in the frontal regions associated with VSWM during EFT completion (Damarla et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref105">16</reflink>]; Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref106">35</reflink>]; Ring et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref107">52</reflink>]). Further evidence from research in adults showed that EFT performance was diminished when participants performed a secondary VSWM task concurrently (Miyake et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref108">45</reflink>]). The DOT has a more complicated series of steps required to complete the task, including segmenting the elemental parts, identifying and matching the elemental pattern, and then writing the correct number in the appropriate space in the grid, which may explain why age contributes to individual differences in performance. Although VWM correlated with both the CEFT and DOT, in line with previous research in children (Alloway & Alloway, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref109">3</reflink>]; Guisande et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref110">26</reflink>]), it was not a significant predictor of either FI measure when the additional general cognitive measures were included. This contrasts with our tentative prediction of a closer link between FI and VWM than VSWM, and may be explained by differing task requirements and a lower mean age in the present study than in the neuroimaging study by Lee and colleagues (Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref111">35</reflink>]). We believe this is the first study to give us a more complete understanding of the general cognitive abilities underlying FI and furthermore, identifies important differences between tasks measuring disembedding and segmenting.</p> <p>The second aim of this study was to examine the nature of the relationship between FI and mathematics and science. In line with our prediction, and in support of previous research (e.g. Leo‐Rhynie, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref112">36</reflink>]; Tinajero & Paramo, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref113">58</reflink>]), there were strong positive associations between FI and mathematics and science performance. However, the FI tasks and academic tests also significantly correlated with IQ, WM, and IC (to a lesser extent), suggesting that it might be these underlying cognitive abilities that explain the relationships. Note that lower associations with IC may be because of the lower reliability of the IC measure. After controlling for age, IQ, WM, and IC, the CEFT explained additional variance on the Mathematical Reasoning and science tests, and the DOT explained additional variance on the Numerical Operations test. This indicates that although some of the relationship between FI and mathematics and science can be explained by overlapping variance with general cognitive abilities, there were additional elements of disembedding that were important for Mathematical Reasoning and scientific achievement, while segmenting was important for Numerical Operations only.</p> <p>It is possible that disembedding explained performance on Mathematical Reasoning and science because of the inherent need to decontextualize concepts in these tests. In contrast, the written procedural maths questions in Numerical Operations were not embedded in a context, but required the segmentation of place value columns and operation symbols as well as an understanding of abstract mathematical concepts. Contrary to expectation, we did not find a stronger relationship between FI and mathematics and science with age. Although there was a main effect of Year on all variables, the only significant interaction was revealed when predicting Numerical Operations from CEFT. The association was weaker in Year 1 children than in the older children. This may suggest that younger children do not engage similar cognitive processes when completing these two activities, or it may be driven by a lack of variance in Numerical Operation scores in that Year, highlighting the difficulty of finding a written mathematics test suitable across a wide age range.</p> <p>The finding that an ability to identify and isolate target information from complex stimuli associates with mathematics and science achievement has potential implications for mathematics and science education. Children aged 5–10 years may benefit from information being presented in a clear, noncluttered way, with attention being drawn to key areas of focus (Fisher, Godwin, & Seltman, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref114">21</reflink>]; Harp & Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref115">27</reflink>]). This would enable children to access the target information more easily from within the context of the whole page. Performance may also be improved by encouraging children to selectively attend to important parts of a stimulus, such as a changing operation symbol in a column of number sentences, without being distracted by the whole. Additionally, to encourage the decontextualization of concepts, it may be useful to present concepts in a number of contexts so that commonalities can be identified (Ainsworth, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref116">1</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0139742740-24">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>This study is the first to examine a number of predictors (age, IQ, WM, and IC) of two tasks measuring FI, thus deepening our understanding of the cognitive processes underlying FI. Furthermore, we have identified that the positive relationships between FI and both mathematics and science are partially because of overlapping variance with age, IQ, and WM. However, there are also specific, unique contributions to performance, reflecting the different levels of disembedding and segmenting involved in different mathematics and science tests.</p> <hd id="AN0139742740-25">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>Funding for this research was provided by The Bloomsbury Colleges Ph.D. Scholarship Program. The authors would like to thank the teachers and children from Ashdown Primary School for their enthusiastic participation in the project, as well as Jackie Phelps for her valuable help with data collection.</p> <hd id="AN0139742740-26">CONFLICT OF INTEREST</hd> <p>The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.</p> <p>GRAPH: Appendix S1 Supporting InformationTable S1 Estimated margin means (SE) and main effects of Year for Children's Embedded Figures Test (CEFT), Design Organisation Task (DOT), IQ, working memory (WM), inhibitory control (IC), and mathematics and science tests. Significant effects are highlighted in bold.Figure S1 Scatterplot of Numerical Operations score as a function of Children's Embedded Figures Test (CEFT) accuracy and Year.</p> <ref id="AN0139742740-27"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref86" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ainsworth, S. (2008). The educational value of multiple‐representations when learning complex scientific concepts. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education. (pp. 191 – 208). Dordrecht, The Netherlands : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alamolhodaei, H. (2002). Students' cognitive style and mathematical word problem solving. Journal of the Korea Society of Mathematical Education, 6 (2), 171 – 182.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref78" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Alloway, T. P., & Alloway, R. G. (2010). Investigating the predictive roles of working memory and IQ in academic attainment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106 (1), 20 – 29. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.11.003">http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.11.003</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref35" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Amador‐Campos, J. A., & Kirchner‐Nebot, T. (1997). Relations of scores on children's embedded figures test with age, item difficulty and internal consistency. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1954, 675 – 682. Retrieved from. <ulink href="http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pms.1997.85.2.675">http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pms.1997.85.2.675</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref3" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Azari, S., Radmehr, F., & Mohajer, M. (2013). A study on the relationship between students' cognitive style and mathematical word and procedural problem solving while controlling for students' intelligent quotient and math anxiety. European Journal of Child development, Education and Psychopathology, 1 (2), 59 – 73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref48" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Baroody, A. (2000). Does mathematics instruction for three‐to five‐year‐olds really make sense. Young Children, 55 (4), 61 – 67. Retrieved from. <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/42727827">http://www.jstor.org/stable/42727827</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref72" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Best, J., & Miller, P. (2010). A developmental perspective on executive function. Child Development, 81 (6), 1641 – 1660. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2010.01499.x.A">http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2010.01499.x.A</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref59" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Billington, J., Baron‐Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2007). Cognitive style predicts entry into physical sciences and humanities: Questionnaire and performance tests of empathy and systemizing. Learning and Individual Differences, 17 (3), 260 – 268. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.02.004">http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.02.004</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref18" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Boccia, M., Piccardi, L., Di Marco, M., Pizzamiglio, L., & Guariglia, C. (2016). Does field independence predict visuo‐spatial abilities underpinning human navigation? Behavioural evidence. Experimental Brain Research, 234 (10), 2799 – 2807. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1007/s00221‐016‐4682‐9">http://doi.org/10.1007/s00221‐016‐4682‐9</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Booth, R. D. L. (2006). Local‐global processing and cognitive style in autism spectrum disorders and typical development (Doctoral thesis). King's College London, London, England.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bressan, P. (2018). Systemisers are better at maths. Scientific Reports, 8 (1), 1 – 5. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1038/s41598‐018‐30013‐8">http://doi.org/10.1038/s41598‐018‐30013‐8</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buriel, R. (1978). Relationship of three field‐dependence measures to the reading and math achievement of Anglo American and Mexican American children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70 (2), 167 – 174. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.70.2.167">http://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.70.2.167</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Busch, J. C., Watson, J. A., Brinkley, V., Howard, J., & Nelson, C. (1993). Preschool embedded figures test performance of young children: Age and gender differences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, 491 – 496.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cairns, E., Malone, S., Johnston, J., & Cammock, T. (1985). Sex differences in children's group embedded figures test performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 6 (5), 653 – 654. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1016/0191‐8869(85)90018‐2">http://doi.org/10.1016/0191‐8869(85)90018‐2</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlson, J. S., & Jensen, C. M. (1981). Reliability of the Raven Colored Progressive Matrices Test: Age and ethnic group comparisons. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49 (3), 320 – 322. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.49.3.320</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Damarla, S. R., Keller, T. A., Kana, R. K., Cherkassky, V. L., Williams, D. L., Minshew, N. J., & Just, M. A. (2010). Cortical underconnectivity coupled with preserved visuospatial cognition in autism: Evidence from an fMRI study of an embedded figures task. Autism Research, 3 (5), 273 – 279. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1002/aur.153">http://doi.org/10.1002/aur.153</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De‐Wit, L., Huygelier, H., Van der Hallen, R., Chamberlain, R., & Wagemans, J. (2017). Developing the Leuven embedded figures test (L‐EFT): Testing the stimulus features that influence embedding. PeerJ, 5, e2862. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2862">http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2862</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Derussy, E. A., & Futch, E. (1971). Field dependence‐independence as related to college curricula. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 33, 1235 – 1237.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn, L. M., Dunn, D. M., Styles, B., & Sewell, J. (2009). The British Picture Vocabulary Scale (3rd ed.). London, UK : GL Assessment.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans, C., Richardson, J. T. E., & Waring, M. (2013). Field independence: Reviewing the evidence. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (2), 210 – 224. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12015">http://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12015</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fisher, A. V., Godwin, K. E., & Seltman, H. (2014). Visual environment, attention allocation, and learning in young children: When too much of a good thing may be bad. Psychological Science, 25 (7), 1362 – 1370. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614533801">http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614533801</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flexer, B. K., & Roberge, J. J. (1980). IQ, field dependence‐independence, and the development of formal operational thought. The Journal of General Psychology, 103 (2), 191 – 201. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1980.9920998">http://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1980.9920998</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Knight, C., & Stegmann, Z. (2004). Working memory skills and educational attainment: Evidence from national curriculum assessments at 7 and 14 years of age. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18 (1), 1 – 16. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1002/acp.934">http://doi.org/10.1002/acp.934</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glynn, M. A., & Stoner, S. (1987). Construct validity of the Children's embedded figures test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64, 1035 – 1038.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodenough, D. R., & Eagle, C. (1963). A modification of the embedded‐figures test for use with young children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 103, 67 – 74. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004">http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guisande, M. A., Soledad Rodríguez, M., Almeida, L. S., Tinajero, C., & Fernanda Páramo, M. (2008). Digits backward and the Children's embedded figures test among school‐age Spanish children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 107 (3), 923 – 932. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.2466/PMS.107.3.923‐932">http://doi.org/10.2466/PMS.107.3.923‐932</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harp, S., & Mayer, R. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 (3), 414 – 413. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.90.3.414">http://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.90.3.414</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huygelier, H., Van der Hallen, R., Wagemans, J., de‐Wit, L., & Chamberlain, R. (2018). The Leuven embedded figures test (L‐EFT): Measuring perception, intelligence or executive function? PeerJ, 6, e4524. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4524">http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4524</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Imanaka, M., Kakigi, R., & Nakata, H. (2017). The relationship between cognitive style and event‐related potentials during auditory and somatosensory go/no‐go paradigms. Neuroreport, 28, 822 – 827. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0000000000000833">http://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0000000000000833</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jantan, H. R. (2014). Relationship between students' cognitive style (field‐dependent and field‐independent cognitive styles) with their mathematic achievement in primary school. International Journal of Humanities, Social Sciences and Education (IJHSSE), 1 (10), 88 – 93.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jia, S., Zhang, Q., & Li, S. (2014). Field dependence‐independence modulates the efficiency of filtering out irrelevant information in a visual working memory task. Neuroscience, 278, 136 – 143. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2014.07.075">http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2014.07.075</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karp, S. A., & Konstadt, N. L. (1963) Manual for the Children's embedded figures test. Oxford, England : Cognitive Tests.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Killgore, W. D. S., & Gogel, H. (2014). The design organization test: Further demonstration of reliability and validity as a brief measure of visuospatial ability. Applied Neuropsychology. Adult, 21 (4), 297 – 309. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2013.811671">http://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2013.811671</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lawson, A. (1983). Predicting science achievement: The role of developmental level, disembedding ability, mental capacity, prior knowledge, and beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20 (2), 117 – 129.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, P. S., Foss‐Feig, J., Henderson, J. G., Kenworthy, L. E., Gilotty, L., Gaillard, W. D., & Vaidya, C. J. (2007). Atypical neural substrates of embedded figures task performance in children with autism Spectrum disorder. NeuroImage, 38 (1), 184 – 193. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.013">http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.013</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leo‐Rhynie, E. (1985). Field independence, academic orientation, and achievement. Current Psychology, 4 (1), 22 – 27. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686563">http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686563</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, Y., Wu, S., Zhu, J., & O'Boyle, M. W. (2014). Sex and ability differences in neural activation for disembedding figures: An EEG investigation. Learning and Individual Differences, 35 (October 2014), 142 – 146. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.07.012">http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.07.012</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lux, S., Marshall, J. C., Ritzl, A., Weiss, P. H., Pietrzyk, U., Shah, N. J. ,... Fink, G. R. (2004). A functional magnetic resonance imaging study of local/global processing with stimulus presentation in the peripheral visual hemifields. Neuroscience, 124 (1), 113 – 120. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2003.10.044">http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2003.10.044</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manjaly, Z. M., Bruning, N., Neufang, S., Stephan, K. E., Brieber, S., Marshall, J. C. ,... Fink, G. R. (2007). Neurophysiological correlates of relatively enhanced local visual search in autistic adolescents. NeuroImage, 35 (1), 283 – 291. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.11.036">http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.11.036</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manjaly, Z. M., Marshall, J. C., Stephan, K. E., Gurd, J. M., Zilles, K., & Fink, G. R. (2003). In search of the hidden: An fMRI study with implications for the study of patients with autism and with acquired brain injury. NeuroImage, 19 (3), 674 – 683. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1016/S1053‐8119(03)00095‐8">http://doi.org/10.1016/S1053‐8119(03)00095‐8</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merkley, R., Thompson, J., & Scerif, G. (2016). Of huge mice and tiny elephants: Exploring the relationship between inhibitory processes and preschool math skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 1903 (6), 1 – 14. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01903">http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01903</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer, M. L., Salimpoor, V. N., Wu, S. S., Geary, D. C., & Menon, V. (2010). Differential contribution of specific working memory components to mathematics achievement in 2nd and 3rd graders. Learning and Individual Differences, 20 (2), 101 – 109. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.08.004">http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.08.004</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milne, E., & Szczerbinski, M. (2009). Global and local perceptual style, field‐independence, and central coherence: An attempt at concept validation. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 5 (1), 1 – 26. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.2478/v10053‐008‐0062‐8">http://doi.org/10.2478/v10053‐008‐0062‐8</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex "frontal lobe" tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41 (1), 49 – 100. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734">http://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miyake, A., Witzki, A. H., & Emerson, M. J. (2010). Field dependence‐independence from a working memory perspective: A dual‐task investigation of the hidden figures test. Memory (Hove, England), 9 (4–6), 445 – 457. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1080/09658210143000029">http://doi.org/10.1080/09658210143000029</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pellicano, E., Maybery, M., Durkin, K., & Maley, A. (2006). Multiple cognitive capabilities/deficits in children with an autism spectrum disorder: "Weak" central coherence and its relationship to theory of mind and executive control. Development and Psychopathology, 18 (1), 77 – 98. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579406060056">http://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579406060056</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pithers, R. (2002). Cognitive learning style: A review of the field dependent‐field independent approach. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 54 (1), 117 – 132. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1080/13636820200200191">http://doi.org/10.1080/13636820200200191</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poirel, N., Pineau, A., Jobard, G., & Mellet, E. (2008). Seeing the forest before the trees depends on individual field‐dependency characteristics. Experimental Psychology, 55 (5), 328 – 333. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1027/1618‐3169.55.5.328">http://doi.org/10.1027/1618‐3169.55.5.328</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Project 2061. (2009). Benchmarks for science literacy. American Association for the Advancement of Science and National Science Teachers Association. New York, NY: Oxcord University Press, 2009. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php">http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raven, J., Raven, J.C., & Court, J.H. (1998). Coloured progressive matrices. Oxford : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rémy, L., & Gilles, P. Y. (2014). Relationship between field dependence‐independence and the g factor: What can problem‐solving strategies tell us? Revue Europeene de Psychologie Appliquee, 64 (2), 77 – 82. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2014.02.001">http://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2014.02.001</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ring, H. A., Baron‐Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Williams, S. C. R., Brammer, M., Andrew, C., & Bullmore, E. T. (1999). Cerebral correlates of preserved cognitive skills in autism. A functional MRI study of embedded figures task performance. Brain, 122 (7), 1305 – 1315. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1093/brain/122.7.1305">http://doi.org/10.1093/brain/122.7.1305</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberge, J. J., & Flexer, B. K. (1983). Cognitive style, operativity, and mathematics achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14 (5), 344 – 353.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Satterly, D. J. (1976). Cognitive styles, spatial ability, and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68 (1), 36 – 42. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.68.1.36">http://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.68.1.36</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schorr, D., Bower, G. H., & Kiernan, R. J. (1982). Stimulus variables in the block design task. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50 (4), 479 – 487. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐006X.50.4.479">http://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐006X.50.4.479</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shah, A., & Frith, U. (1993). Why do autistic individuals show superior performance on the block design task? Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 34 (8), 1351 – 1364.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swyter, L., & Michael, W. (1982). The interrelationships of four measures hypothesized to represent the field dependence‐field independence construct. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42, 877 – 888.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tinajero, C., & Paramo, M. F. (1997). Field dependence‐independence and academic achievement: A re‐examination of their relationship. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 199 – 212.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tinajero, C., Páramo, M. F., European, S., June, N., & Fernanda, M. (1998). Field dependence‐independence cognitive style and academic achievement: A review of research and theory. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 13 (2), 227 – 251.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van der Hallen, R., Chamberlain, R., De‐Wit, L., & Wagemans, J. (2018). Superior disembedding in children with ASD: New tests using abstract, meaningful, and 3D contexts. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48 (7), 2478 – 2489. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1007/s10803‐018‐3508‐y">http://doi.org/10.1007/s10803‐018‐3508‐y</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walter, E., & Dassonville, P. (2011). Activation in a frontoparietal cortical network underlies individual differences in the performance of an embedded figures task. PLoS One, 6 (7), e20742. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020742">http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020742</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wechsler, D. (1974) Wechsler intelligence scale for children. San Antonio, TX : Psychological Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wechsler, D. (1997) WAIS‐III administration and scoring manual. San Antonio, TX : Psychological Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wechsler, D. (2002) Wechsler individual achievement test. (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX : Psychological Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wei, X., Yu, J. W., Shattuck, P., McCracken, M., & Blackorby, J. (2013). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) participation among college students with an autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43 (7), 1539 – 1546. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2011.07.011.Innate">http://doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2011.07.011.Innate</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weissman, D. H., & Woldorff, M. G. (2005). Hemispheric asymmetries for different components of global/local attention occur in distinct temporo‐parietal loci. Cerebral Cortex, 15 (6), 870 – 876. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhh187">http://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhh187</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Witkin, H. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Karp, S. A. (1967). Stability of cognitive style from childhood to young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7 (3), 291 – 300. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1037/h0025070">http://doi.org/10.1037/h0025070</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Witkin, H. A., Ottman, R. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. A. (1971) A manual for the embedded figures test. Palo Alto, CA : Consulting Psychologists Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field‐dependent and field‐independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. ETS Research Bulletin Series, 47 (1), 1 – 64. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333‐8504.1975.tb01065.x">http://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333‐8504.1975.tb01065.x</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolfe, J. M., & Horowitz, T. S. (2017). Five factors that guide attention in visual search. Nature Human Behaviour, 1 (3), 0058. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1038/s41562‐017‐0058">http://doi.org/10.1038/s41562‐017‐0058</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, L. F. (2004). Field‐dependence/independence: Cognitive style or perceptual ability? ‐ validating against thinking styles and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 37 (6), 1295 – 1311. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.12.015">http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.12.015</ulink></bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Su Morris; Emily K. Farran and Iroise Dumontheil</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref115"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1234989
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Field Independence Associates with Mathematics and Science Performance in 5- to 10-Year-Olds after Accounting for Domain-General Factors
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Morris%2C+Su%22">Morris, Su</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6804-9682">0000-0002-6804-9682</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Farran%2C+Emily+K%2E%22">Farran, Emily K.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dumontheil%2C+Iroise%22">Dumontheil, Iroise</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Mind%2C+Brain%2C+and+Education%22"><i>Mind, Brain, and Education</i></searchLink>. Nov 2019 13(4):268-278.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+Style%22">Cognitive Style</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Age+Differences%22">Age Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+Processes%22">Cognitive Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mathematics+Tests%22">Mathematics Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intelligence%22">Intelligence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Verbal+Ability%22">Verbal Ability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Short+Term+Memory%22">Short Term Memory</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Tests%22">Science Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictor+Variables%22">Predictor Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Thinking+Skills%22">Thinking Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Tests%22">Tests</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Childrens+Embedded+Figures+Test%22">Childrens Embedded Figures Test</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/mbe.12214
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1751-2271
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Field independence describes the extent to which individuals are influenced by context when trying to identify embedded targets. It associates with cognitive functioning and is a predictor of academic achievement. However, little is known about the neural and cognitive underpinnings of field independence that lead to these associations. Here, we investigated behavioral associations between two measures of field independence (Children's Embedded Figures Test [CEFT] and Design Organization Test [DOT]) and performance on tests of mathematics (reasoning and written arithmetic) and science (reasoning and scientific inquiry) in 135 children aged 5-10 years. There were strong associations between field independence and mathematics and science, which were largely explained by individual differences in age, intelligence, and verbal working memory. However, regression analyses indicated that after controlling for these variables, the CEFT explained additional variance on the mathematical reasoning and science tests, whereas the DOT predicted unique variance on the written arithmetic test.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1234989
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1234989
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/mbe.12214
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 268
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Style
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Age Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mathematics Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intelligence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Verbal Ability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Short Term Memory
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Predictor Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Thinking Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Childrens Embedded Figures Test
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Field Independence Associates with Mathematics and Science Performance in 5- to 10-Year-Olds after Accounting for Domain-General Factors
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Morris, Su
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Farran, Emily K.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dumontheil, Iroise
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1751-2271
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 13
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Mind, Brain, and Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1