OpenPsych forums

Full Version: [ODP] Sex differences in g and chronometric tests
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Males average 100g more brain than women, and brain size is known to correlate with general intelligence (\textit{g}), leading to the possibility that men average somewhat higher in \textit{g} than women. Chronometric tests are known to be correlated with \textit{g} and there is strong evidence that men do better on chronometric tests. Furthermore there is evidence that adding chronometric tests to standard batteries yields a better measurement of \textit{g}. However, chronometric tests are not found in standard IQ batteries and thus if one relies on standard batteries to test for a sex difference, one may underestimate the sex difference.

Keywords: Sex differences; intelligence; IQ; g-factor, reaction time, elementary cognitive test

Attached files: Layout PDF, source PDF.
(2014-Mar-23, 07:41:17)Philbrick Bastinado Wrote: [ -> ][redacted]

If you're talking about e.g. simple reaction time, then the correlation is low between groups because the test is not very g-loaded, .2-.3 or so. I think that if one uses a battery of tests with more g-loaded chronometric tests, then one will see Spearman's law confirmed and the racial differences on the tests highly g-loaded will be close to the normal 1-1.1 d.
(2014-Mar-24, 00:47:11)Philbrick Bastinado Wrote: [ -> ][redacted]

Yes, this is because the g-loading of individual ECTs is very low as well, as discussed by Jensen (1993). Spearman's law was confirmed in his study as well (r's about .75). It would be more interesting to have a study with a large number of ECTs varying wildly in their g-loading and at least two groups with different means present (of whatever type), to see how the ECT d matches up to conventional IQ test d's.

Jensen, Arthur R. "Spearman's hypothesis tested with chronometric information-processing tasks." Intelligence 17.1 (1993): 47-77.
Discuss this, then publish
(2014-Mar-25, 01:23:06)Philbrick Bastinado Wrote: [ -> ]Discuss this, then publish

New version attached.
Can reviewers comment on this submission? It has been 17 days since the last post.
I approve its publication.
(2014-Apr-22, 02:11:13)Emil Wrote: [ -> ]Can reviewers comment on this submission? It has been 17 days since the last post.

Your paper gives me no sense of the vast amount of literature on the topic. Also, you fail to mention a number of conflicting reports. For example:

Sex differences in latent cognitive abilities ages 5 to 17: Evidence from the Differential Ability Scales—Second Edition. Intelligence, 39(5), 389-404.
Sex differences in brain volume are related to specific skills, not to general intelligence. Intelligence, 40(1), 60-68.
Null sex differences in general intelligence among elderly. Personality and Individual Differences, 63, 53-57.

Also, this issue has already been discussed some. See, for example:

Sex differences on elementary cognitive tasks despite no differences on the Wonderlic Personnel Test. Personality and individual differences, 45(5), 429-431.

I'm not sure what your discussion adds.
Pages: 1 2