CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 546Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Functions and Memory

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Working Memory Capacity and Fluid Intelligence Are Strongly Related Constructs: Comment on Ackerman, Beier, and Boyle (2005).

Kane, Michael J., Hambrick, David Z., Conway, Andrew R. A.·2005·Psychological Bulletin
DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.66
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The authors agree with P. L. Ackerman, M. E. Beier, and M. O. Boyle (2005; see record 2004-22408-002) that working memory capacity (WMC) is not isomorphic with general fluid intelligence (Gf) or reasoning ability. However, the WMC and Gf/reasoning constructs are more strongly associated than Ackerman et al. (2005) indicate, particularly when considering the outcomes of latent-variable studies. The authors' reanalysis of 14 such data sets from 10 published studies, representing more than 3,100 young-adult subjects, suggests a strong correlation between WMC and Gf/reasoning factors (median r=.72), indicating that the WMC and Gf constructs share approximately 50% of their variance. This comment also clarifies the authors' "executive attention" view of WMC, it demonstrates that WMC has greater discriminant validity than Ackerman et al. (2005) implied, and it suggests some future directions and challenges for the scientific study of the convergence of WMC, attention control, and intelligence.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.66

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 40 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–546 of 546

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., & Conway, A. R. A.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2005-01
Volume
131
Issue
1
Pages
66-71
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
DOI
10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.66
OpenAlex
W2021304061
Cited by
545
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 26
FWCI
24.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NC Digital Online Collection of Knowledge and Scholarship (The University of North Carolina at Greensboro) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
working memory capacity, fluid intelligence, general intelligence, reasoning skills, latent variable analysis, construct validity, discriminant validity, executive attention, attentional control
MeSH terms
Humans, Intelligence, Memory

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