Search for: All records

Objective There are many measures of health and/or financial literacy and/or numeracy, which vary widely in terms of length, content, and the extent to which numbers or math operations are involved. Although the literature is large, there is less considers what is known about math prediction and development, perhaps because the bulk of this literature is with adults. This is important because the literature on how math develops, what predicts it, and how to intervene with it, is very large (Cirino, 2022). To the extent that performance and prediction are similar, then information from the developmental literature of mathematics can be brought to bear with regard to health and financial numeracy. Here we assess math cognition variables (arithmetic concepts and number line estimation) alongside working memory, likely the most robust cognitive predictor of math, as well as sociodemographic covariates. We expect all predictors to relate to each type of outcome, though we expect reading to be more related to health and financial numeracy relative to symbolic math. Participants and Methods Participants were 238 young adults, diverse in language and race/ethnicity, enrolled in their first and entry-level college math class at either community college or university; approximately 30% were taking developmental coursework. For this study, participants were given three sets of analogous math problems: (a) pure symbolic; (b) health numeracy context; (c) financial numeracy context. Additional measures were of reading (KTEA-3 Reading Comprehension), math cognition (Arithmetic Concepts and Number Line Estimation), and complex span working memory (Symmetry Span and Reading Span). Correlations assessed relations, and multiple regression assessed prediction. Results All measures involving math correlated, though symbolic math less well than health and financial numeracy with one another. For symbolic math, math cognition and working memory together accounted for R2=56% variance, and all were unique predictors, with arithmetic concepts strongest (ηp2 = .19). For health numeracy, all predictors also accounted for R2=56% variance. Beyond symbolic math, math cognition and working memory were unique predictors (all p < .05); reading comprehension was not. The clearly strongest unique predictor was number line estimation (ηp2 = .06). For financial numeracy, all predictors accounted for R2=61% variance. Beyond symbolic math and reading comprehension, again math cognition and working memory were unique predictors (all p < .05), and again number line estimation was the strongest (ηp2 = .08). Results held with covariate control. Conclusions Math cognition and working memory are known important contributors to math skill. This study shows these to be equally important whether math is in a pure symbolic context, or a health and or financial context. This suggests that the utility of health and financial numeracy measures (and potentially the constructs themselves) needs to consider the underlying concomitants of math skill more generally, particularly as the extent to which numbers and/or specific math operations are used in such measures varies widely. Context is likely important, however, and future work will need to consider practical outcomes (e.g., risky health or financial behaviors and management) across a range of populations.