Abstract
Three theoretical accounts have been put forward for the development of children's response patterns on number line estimation tasks: the log-to-linear representational shift, the two-linear-to-linear transformation and the proportion judgment account. These three accounts have not been contrasted, however, within one study, using one single criterion to determine which model provides the best fit. The present study contrasted these three accounts by examining first, second and sixth graders with a symbolic and non-symbolic number line estimation task (Experiment 1). In addition, first and second graders were tested again one year later (Experiment 2). In case of symbolic estimations, the proportion judgment account described the data best. Most young children's non-symbolic estimation patterns were best described by a logarithmic model (within the log-to-lin account), whereas those of most older children were best described by the simple power model (within the proportion judgment account).