A Comparison of Computation Span and Reading Span Working Memory Measures’ Relations With Problem-Solving Criteria

Abstract

Researchers have operationalized working memory in different ways and although working memory-performance relationships are well documented, there has been relatively less attention devoted to determining whether seemingly similar measures yield comparable relations with performance outcomes. Our objective is to assess whether two working memory measures deploying the same processes but different item content yield different relations with two problem-solving criteria. Participants completed a computation-based working memory measure and a reading-based measure prior to performing a computerized simulation. Results reveal differential relations with one of the two criteria and support the notion that the two working memory measures tap working memory capacity and other cognitive abilities. One implication for theory development is that researchers should consider incorporating other cognitive abilities in their working memory models and that the selection of those abilities should correspond to the criterion of interest. One practical implication is that researchers and practitioners shouldn't automatically assume that different phonological loop-based working memory scales are interchangeable.

Self-Regulated Learning and Working Memory Determine Problem-Solving Accuracy in Math

“…It would be likely that computation span would have a greater weight in the prediction since the final scores of both the game performance and the traditional problem required numerical processing. This interpretation is in accordance with previous findings that revealed that the predictive usefulness of different dimensions of WM relied on the type of tasks that were being performed (Perlow & Jattuso, 2018). Specifically, with regards to previous findings, a strategy development task depended more on linguistic abilities than numerical reasoning (Perlow & Jattuso, 2018).…”

“…This interpretation is in accordance with previous findings that revealed that the predictive usefulness of different dimensions of WM relied on the type of tasks that were being performed (Perlow & Jattuso, 2018). Specifically, with regards to previous findings, a strategy development task depended more on linguistic abilities than numerical reasoning (Perlow & Jattuso, 2018).…”

The association between working memory and mathematical problem solving: A three-level meta-analysis

“…Given the variety of WM tests, we also found that each WM test-MPS relationship was well documented and the tests measuring operations showed stronger links than other types. Previous studies have demonstrated that WM tests measure both cognitive abilities and other skills (e.g., counting numbers) according to how the construct was conducted and assessors always use the tool relating best to their criterion of interest ( Perlow and Jattuso, 2018 ). However, the results show that practitioners should pay more attention to cognitive characteristics or relationship between WM tests and other constructs.…”

“…Moreover, researchers have operationalized WM and these components in a variety of ways (e.g., operation span, block span, sentence span). Previous studies have investigated the difference between MPS and WM measures based on reading and counting ( Perlow and Jattuso, 2018 ). Clarifying these problems will also be beneficial for our understanding of the nature of MPS.…”