Individual differences in working memory and reading
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
According to the executive attention view, the attentional component primarily drives the predictive validity of working memory capacity measures.
“it is primarily the attentional component that drives the predictive validity of working memory capacity measures (e.g., Daneman & Carpenter, 1980;Engle et al., 1999).”
From Which “working memory” are we talking about? Complex span tasks versus N-back (2025) · cites this paper as Daneman & Carpenter, 1980
Working-memory abilities were assessed with Salthouse and Babcock's (1991) computation-span test, a variant of the reading-span test.
“Working-memory abilities were assessed with Salthouse and Babcock's (1991) computation-span test, which is a variant of the well-known reading-span test (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980).”
From Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency (2002) · cites this paper as Daneman & Carpenter, 1980
The Canadian working memory model emphasizes the trade-off between storage and processing, as evidenced by its operationalization, which measures working memory capacity as sentence span, where sentences have to be comprehended and evaluated for meaning while a verbal storage load (the last word of each sentence) steadily increases in magnitude.
“emphasizes the trade-off between storage and processing, as is evidenced by its operationalization, which measures working memory capacity as sentence span, where sentences have to be comprehended and evaluated for meaning while a verbal storage load ~the last word of each sentence!steadily increases in magnitude+”
From AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE (2005) · cites this paper as Daneman & Carpenter, 1980
Individual differences in sentence span relate to language learning aptitude: people with better sentence span are better language learners in both L1 and L2.
“People with better sentence span are better language learners, both in L1 ~Daneman & Carpenter, 1980;Daneman & Case, 1981;Daneman & Green, 1986;Daneman & Merikle, 1996;Engle, Tuholski, Laughlin, &Conway, 1999! andin L2 ~Harrington &Sawyer, 1992!+”
From AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE (2005) · cites this paper as Daneman & Carpenter, 1980
Individual differences in the capacity of the central executive are commonly assessed using complex memory paradigms requiring simultaneous storage and processing of information.
“Individual differences in the capacity of the central executive are commonly assessed using complex memory paradigms requiring simultaneous storage and processing of information.”
From A structural analysis of working memory and related cognitive skills in young children (2004) · cites this paper as Daneman & Carpenter, 1980
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 35 · Cited by 6,336
- Authors
- Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Carpenter, Patricia A.
- Venue
- Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1980-08
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 450-466
- ISSN
- 0022-5371 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2023584795
- Cited by
- 6,336
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 90 · 2025: 146 · 2024: 201 · 2023: 186 · 2022: 220 · 2021: 265 · 2020: 214 · 2019: 260 · 2018: 224 · 2017: 254 · 2016: 290 · 2015: 311 · 2014: 314 · 2013: 274 · 2012: 297
- FWCI
- 19.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Keywords
- working memory capacity, individual differences, reading comprehension, reading span, sentence recall, pronominal reference, fact retrieval, listening span, digit span, word span
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review