In an attempt to explain the gender gap in Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores, a study tested the effects of changing time limits and directions on the performance of academically talented males and females. Students took either the SAT-Math subtest (n = 46 males and 27 females) or the SAT-Verbal subtest (n = 36 males and 33 females) under Timed or Untimed conditions and with Standard or Non-standard Directions. Analyses involved comparisons of performance by gender under the experimental conditions. Resulting trends indicated differences on the basis of time and gender on the SAT-M subtest. Further analysis revealed several patterns which could potentially explain reasons for performance differences outside of ability. No significant differences were found on the SAT-V subtest. Discussion of study results include the reasons why performance on the SAT-M may not reflect pure ability and the efficacy of using the SAT-M with its current time limit to identify academic talent.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlpertR., & HaberR. (1960). Anxiety in academic achievement situations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61 (2), 207–215.
2.
BenbowC., & StanleyJ. (1980). Sex differences in mathematical ability: fact or artifact?Science, 210, 1262–1264.
3.
BerkR. (1982). Handbook of methods for detecting test bias. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
4.
BrighamC. (1932). A study of error. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
5.
ChipmanS., BrushL., & WilsonD. (1985). Women and mathematics: Balancing the equation. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
6.
CoffmanW. (1961). Sex differences in responses to items in an aptitude test. Eighteenth yearbook, National Council on Measurement in Education, 117–124.
7.
DonlonT. (1973). Content factors in sex differences on test questions. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service (ETS RM 73–28).
8.
EcclesJ., AdlerT., FultermanR., GoffS., KaczalaC., MeeceJ., & MidgleyC. (1985). Self-perceptions, socializing influences, and the decision to enroll in mathematics. In ChipmanS., BrushL., and WilsonD. (eds.), Women and mathematics: Balancing the equation. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
9.
Educational Testing Service (1983). Taking the SAT: A guide to the Scholastic Aptitude Test and the Test of Standard Written English. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
10.
FennemaE., & ShermanJ. (1977). Distribution of spatial visualization and mathematical problem solving scores: A test of Stafford's X-linked hypothesis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 3 (2), 157–167.
11.
FoxL. (1980). The problem of women and mathematics. Reports to the Ford Foundation, New York.
12.
FriezeI. (1975). Women's expectations for and causal attributions of success and failure. In MedrickM., TangriS., and HoffmanL. (eds.), Women and achievement. New York: Wiley.
13.
GallagherJ., AshnerM., & JenneW. (1967). Thinking of gifted children in classroom interaction. Council for Exceptional Children Research Monograph No. B5 (Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children).
14.
GallagherS. (1987). An analysis of visual-spatial ability, intellectual efficiency, and learning style on mathematics achievement of gifted male and gifted female adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
15.
GrafG., & RiddleJ. (1972). Sex differences in problem solving as a function of problem content. Journal of Educational Research, 65 (10), 451–452.
16.
HighamS. (1984). Cognitive processes in verbally and mathematically talented adolescents sex differences, cerebral asymmetry, and the SAT. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University.
17.
MaccobyE., & JacklinC. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: The Stanford University Press.
18.
MacDonaldC. (1980). An experiment in mathematics education at the college level. In FoxL., BrodyL., and TabinD. (eds.) Women and the mathematical mystique. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
19.
MayerR. (1985). Mathematical ability. In SternbergR. J. (ed.), Human abilities: An information processing approach. New York: Wilt, Freeman and Company.
20.
RamistL., & ArbeiterS. (1985). Profiles, College-Bound Seniors, 1985. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
21.
SawyerR. (1985). The early identification and education of brilliant students: The Duke model. The College Board Review, 135, 12–31.
22.
SelkowP. (1984). Assessing sex bias in testing: A review of the issues and evaluations of 74 psychological and educational tests. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
23.
StallingsJ. (1985). School, classroom, and home influences on women's decisions to enroll in advanced mathematics courses. In ChipmanBrush, and Wilson (Eds.), Women and mathematics: Balancing the equation. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
24.
WalbergH. (1969). Physics, femininity, and creativity. Developmental Psychology, 1, 47–54.
25.
WeinerN. (1983). Cognitive aptitudes, personality variables, and gender difference effects on mathematical achievement for mathematically gifted students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.
26.
WiseL., SteelL., & MacDonaldC. (1979). Origins and career consequences of sex differences in high school mathematics achievement. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 180 846).
