The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reaction times and intelligence differences: a population-based cohort study.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“For example, using a similar four-choice CRT paradigm, Deary et al. (2001) found mean CRT latencies of 728 ms in a large group of 56 year old participants, while Deary et al. (2011) found mean CRT latencies of 556 ms in participants with a mean age of 48 years.”
From Age-related slowing of response selection and production in a visual choice reaction time task (2015) · cites this paper as Deary et al., 2001
In the citing paper
“These differences were substantial: the mean CRT latencies reported in Deary et al. (2001) were increased by 172 ms, nearly 2.0 standard deviations, in comparison with the results of Deary et al. (2011).”
From Age-related slowing of response selection and production in a visual choice reaction time task (2015) · cites this paper as Deary et al., 2001
In the citing paper
“Moreover, Dykiert et al. (2012b) used an identical paradigm in a population with a mean age of 40 years, and obtained mean CRT latencies that were 210 ms shorter than those obtained by Deary et al. (2001); i.e., a difference much greater than the 32–48 ms that would be predicted based on the different mean ages of the participant populations.”
From Age-related slowing of response selection and production in a visual choice reaction time task (2015) · cites this paper as Deary et al., 2001
In the citing paper
“For example, studies using a reaction time box in which participants press one of four buttons in response to the digits 1–4 (see Table 1) have produced CRT latencies ranging from 518 ms (Dykiert et al., 2012b) to 728 ms (Deary et al., 2001) in participants of similar age ranges, with age slopes ranging from 2.2 to 3.4 ms/year.”
From Age-related slowing of response selection and production in a visual choice reaction time task (2015) · cites this paper as Deary et al., 2001
In the citing paper
“For example, two studies performed by the same laboratory (Deary et al., 2001, 2011) reported mean SRT latencies that differed by more than 80 ms.”
From Factors influencing the latency of simple reaction time (2015) · cites this paper as Deary et al., 2001
Citations
Cites
EQS : structural equations program manual
Bentler, P. M. (1989) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 9,669
On the Rate of Gain of Information
Hick, W. E. (1952) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470215208416600 · Cited by 2,279
Baltes, P. B., & Lindenberger, U. (1997) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/0882-7974.12.1.12 · Cited by 1,509
Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time.
Hyman, R. (1953) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0056940 · Cited by 1,443
Speed of Information-Processing and Intelligence:
Vernon, P. A. (1988) · Cited by 658
V.—MENTAL TESTS AND MEASUREMENTS
Cattell, J. M. (1890) · Mind · doi:10.1093/mind/os-xv.59.373 · Cited by 405
Looking down on human intelligence.
Deary, I. J., & Stough, C. K. K. (1997) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.52.10.1148 · Cited by 366
Self-citationDetterman, D. K., & Daniel, M. H. (1989) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/s0160-2896(89)80007-8 · Cited by 349
Reaction time, movement time, and intelligence
Jensen, A. R., & Munro, E. (1979) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0160-2896(79)90010-2 · Cited by 339
Classification of Occupations 1960.
(1961) · Population Studies · doi:10.2307/2173343 · Cited by 328
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences
Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1 · Cited by 1,457
The structural basis of inter-individual differences in human behaviour and cognition
Kanai, R., & Rees, G. (2011) · Nature reviews. Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3000 · Cited by 1,055
Cognitive predictors of achievement growth in mathematics: A 5-year longitudinal study.
Geary, D. C. (2011) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0025510 · Cited by 836
Davies, G., Lam, M., Harris, S. E., Trampush, J. W., Luciano, M., Hill, W. D., Hagenaars, S. P., Ritchie, S. J., Marioni, R. E., Fawns‐Ritchie, C., et al. (2018) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-04362-x · Cited by 686
Der, G., & Deary, I. J. (2006) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/0882-7974.21.1.62 · Cited by 611
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Deary, I.
- Affiliations
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Deary, I
- ORCID
- Deary, I
- Venue
- Intelligence
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2001-10
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 389-399
- ISSN
- 0160-2896 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2029861863
- Cited by
- 361
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 17
- FWCI
- 8.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Intelligence (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- reaction time, psychometric intelligence, general intelligence, information processing theory, effect size, healthy population, within-person variability, sex differences, educational attainment, social class, older adults
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
