Sex differences on the SAT: An analysis of demographic and educational variables

Research in Higher Education

Volumn 41, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 401-416

  Young, John W ^a   Fisler, Jennifer L ^a  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034196665     PISSN: 03610365     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1007099012828     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. American Association of University Women (1990). How Schools Shortchange Girls. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
2. Anderson, N. H. (1963). Comparison of different populations: Resistance to extinction and transfer. Psychological Review 70: 162-179.
3. Becker, B. J. (1990). Item characteristics and gender differences on the SAT-M for mathematically able youths. American Educational Research Journal 27: 65-87.
4. Becker, J. R. (1981). Differential treatment of females and males in mathematics classes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 12: 40-53.
5. Ben-Shakhar, G. and Sinai, Y. (1991). Gender differences in multiple-choice tests: The role of differential guessing tendencies. Journal of Educational Measurement 28: 23-35.
6. Bossert, S. T. (1981). Understanding sex differences in children's classroom experiences. The Elementary School Journal 81: 255-266.
7. Bridgeman, B. and Lewis, C. (1995). Gender Differences in College Mathematics Grades and SAT-M Scores: A Reanalysis of Wainer and Steinberg. ETS Research Report No. 95-17. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
8. Brody, L. E. and Benbow, C. P. (1990). Effects of high school coursework and time on SAT scores. Journal of Educational Psychology 82: 866-875.
9. Burton, N. W., Lewis, C., and Robertson, N. (1988). Sex Differences in SAT Scores. College Board Report No. 88-9 and ETS Research Report No. 88-58. New York: The College Board.
10. College Board (1995). 1994 Profile of SAT and Achievement Test Takers. New York: The College Board.
11. Davidsen, O. M. (1963). Survery of Reliability of Student Self-Reported High School Grades. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program. Mimeo.
12. Everson, H., Millsap, R. E., and Diones, R. (1995 April). Exploring group differences in SAT performance using structural equation modeling with latent means. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
13. Feingold, A. (1992). Sex differences in variability in intellectual abilities: A new look at an old controversy. Review of Educational Research 62: 61-84.
14. Fennema, E. (1985). Explaining sex-related differences in mathematics: Theoretical models. Educational Studies in Mathematics 16: 303-320.
15. Freeberg, N. E. (1988). Analysis of the Revised Student Descriptive Questionnaire, Phase I: Accuracy of Student-Reported Information. College Board Report No. 88-5. New York: The College Board.
16. Gallagher, S. A. (1989). Predictors of SAT mathematics scores of gifted male and gifted female adolescents. Psyschology of Women Quarterly 13: 191-203.
17. Gottfried, A. W. (1985). Measures of socioeconomic status in child development research: Data and recommendations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 31: 85-92.
18. Hawkins, B. D. (1993). Socio-economic family background: Still a significant influence on SAT scores. Black Issues in Higher Education 10: 14-16.
19. Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four factor index of social status. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, Department of Sociology.
20. Jacklin, C. N. (1989). Female and male: Issues of gender. American Psychologist 44: 127-133.
21. Jacobs, J. E. (1991). Influence of gender streotypes on parent and child mathematics attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology 83: 518-527.
22. Kimball, M. M. (1989). A new perspective on women's math achievement. Psychological Bullentin 105: 198-214.
23. Lehrke, R. G. (1972). A theory of X-linkage of major intellectual traits. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 76: 611-619.
24. Linn, R. L. (1978). Single-group validity, differential validity, and differential prediction. Journal of Applied Psychology 63: 507-512.
25. Linn, M. C. and Hyde, J. S. (1989). Gender, mathematics, and science. Educational Researcher 18: 17-27.
26. Murphy, S. H. (1992). Closing the gender gap: What's behind the differences in test scores, What can be done about it? The College Board Review 163: 18-25, 36.
27. Nichols, R. C. and Holland, J. L. (1963). Prediction of the first-year college performance of high aptitude students. Psychological Monographs 7, No. 570.
28. Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research (3rd ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
29. Ramist, L. (1984). Predictive validity of the ATP tests. In T. F. Donlon (Ed.), The College Board Technical Handbook for the Scholastic Aptitude and Achievement Tests. New York: The College Board.
30. Sadker, M. and Sadker, D. (1986). Sexism in the classroom: From grade school to graduate school. Phi Delta Kappan 75: 512-515.
31. Stricker, L. J. and Rock, D. A. (1993). Examinee Background Characteristics and GRE General Test Performance. GRE Board Research Report No. 89-07R and ETS Research Report 92-80. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
32. Stricker, L. J., Rock, D. A., and Burton, N. W. (1993). Sex differences in predictions of college grades from Scholastic Aptitude Test scores. Journal of Educational Psychology 85: 710-718.
33. Thorne, B. (1994). Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
34. Tittle, C. K. (1986). Gender research and education. American Psychologist 41: 1161-1168.
35. Wainer, H. and Steinberg, L. (1992). Sex differences in performance on the mathematics section of the Scholastic Aptitude Test: A bidirectional validity study. Harvard Educational Review 62: 323-336.
36. Wilder, G. Z. and Powell, K. (1989). Sex Differences in Test Performance: A Review of the Literature. College Board Report No. 89-3. New York: The College Board.
37. Young, J. W. (1991). Gender bias in predicting college academic performance: A new approach using item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement 28: 37-47.