This paper presents a systematic review of the empirical literature that uses dual-task interference methods for investigating the on-line involvement of language in various cognitive tasks. In these studies, participants perform some primary task X putatively recruiting linguistic resources while also engaging in a secondary, concurrent task. If performance on the primary task decreases under interference, there is evidence for language involvement in the primary task. We assessed studies (N = 101) reporting at least one experiment with verbal interference and at least one control task (either primary or secondary). We excluded papers with an explicitly clinical, neurological, or developmental focus. The primary tasks identified include categorization, memory, mental arithmetic, motor control, reasoning (verbal and visuospatial), task switching, theory of mind, visual change, and visuospatial integration and wayfinding. Overall, the present review found that internal language is likely to play a facilitative role in memory and categorization when items to be remembered or categorized have readily available labels, when inner speech can act as a form of behavioral self-cuing (inhibitory control, task set reminders, verbal strategy), and when inner speech is plausibly useful as “workspace”, e.g., for mental arithmetic. There is less evidence for the role of internal language in cross-modal integration, reasoning relying on a high degree of visual detail or items low on nameability, and theory of mind. We discuss potential pitfalls and suggestions for streamlining and improving the methodology.

Recent research on university mathematics education has emphasized the need to understand how cognitive factors and specific mathematical skills contribute to students’ mathematical performance in advanced mathematical contexts. This paper examines the predictive value of fluid intelligence (Gf), cognitive reflection (CR), mastery of logical-mathematical language, and conditional reasoning on the academic achievement of first-year mathematics undergraduates. Combining theoretical perspectives from cognitive science and mathematics education, this study analyzes the extent to which (individually and jointly) these cognitive and disciplinary variables explain differences in mathematical performance at the university level. Logistic and multiple linear regression models are used to examine the relationships existing between these variables, paying special attention to their role in predicting students’ academic outcomes. The findings reveal that both general cognitive abilities and discipline-specific abilities, such as formal language use and conditional reasoning, are significant and independent predictors of academic success in university mathematics. This research contributes to the growing body of knowledge on the factors that shape students’ progression and performance in higher mathematics. Moreover, it highlights the complex interplay between cognitive resources and formal mathematical reasoning at the tertiary level.

The WISC-R and the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement: correlations for exceptional children. The present study concerns correlations of scores on the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement with those on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children--Revised (WISC--R). Correlations between WISC--R Full Scale, Verbal, and Performance IQ and the Reading Aptitude Cluster, the Mathematics Aptitude Cluster, and the Written Language Aptitude Cluster of the Woodcock-Johnson were expected to be high and support the contention that conventional measures of ability do predict achievement for children. Results confirm the hypothesis. The Verbal IQ was the best one-variable predictor of each aptitude cluster, with R s ranging from .32 to .78. Published in Perceptual and motor skills (1988)

For much of its history, it was called the Scholastic Aptitude Test and had two components, Verbal and Mathematical, each of which was scored on a range The SAT ( , ess-ay-TEE) is a standardized test widely used for college admissions in the United States. Since its debut in 1926, its name and scoring have changed several times. For much of its history, it was called the Scholastic Aptitude Test and had two components, Verbal and Mathematical, each of which was scored on a range from 200 to 800. Later it was called the Scholastic Assessment Test, In 2013, the American College Testing Board released a report stating that boys outperformed girls on the mathematics section of the test, a significant gap that has persisted for over 35 years. As of 2015, boys on average earned 32 points more than girls on the SAT mathematics section. Among those scoring in the 700–800 range, the male-to-female ratio was 1.6:1. In 2014, psychologist Stephen Ceci and his collaborators found boys did better than girls across the percentiles. For example, a girl scoring in the top 10% of her sex would only be in the top 20% among the boys. In 2010, psychologist Jonathan Wai and his colleagues showed, by analyzing data from three decades involving 1.6 million intellectually gifted seventh graders from the Duke University Talent Identification Program (TIP), that in the 1980s the gender gap in the mathematics section of the SAT among students scoring in the top 0.01% was 13.5:1 in favor of boys but dropped to 3.8:1 by the 1990s. The dramatic sex ratio from the 1980s replicates a different study using a sample from Johns Hopkins University. This ratio is similar to that observed for the ACT mathematics and science scores between the early 1990s and the late 2000s. It remained largely unaltered at the end of the 2000s. Sex differences in SAT mathematics scores began making themselves apparent at the level of 400 points and above. In the late 2000s, for every female who scored a perfect 800 on the SAT mathematics test, there were two males. Some researchers point to evidence in support of greater male variability in verbal and quantitative reasoning skills. Greater male variability has been found in body weight, height, and cognitive abilities across cultures, leading to a larger number of males in the lowest and highest distributions of testing. Consequently, a higher number of males are found in both the upper and lower extremes of the performance distributions of the mathematics sections of standardized tests such as the SAT, resulting in the observed gender discrepancy. Paradoxically, this is at odds with the tendency of girls to have higher classroom scores than boys, proving that they do not lack scholastic aptitude. However,…