Cited by 427Cognitive Abilities and TestingDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills

The complexities of complex span: Explaining individual differences in working memory in children and adults.

Open access
Bayliss, Donna M., Jarrold, Christopher, Gunn, Deborah M., Baddeley, Alan D.·2003·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Abstract

Two studies are presented that investigated the constraints underlying working memory performance in children and adults. In each case, independent measures of processing efficiency and storage capacity are assessed to determine their relative importance in predicting performance on complex span tasks,which measure working memory capacity. Results show that complex span performance was independently constrained by individual differences in domain-general processing efficiency and domain-specific storage capacity. Residual variance, which may reflect the ability to coordinate storage and processing, also predicted academic achievement. These results challenge the view that complex span taps a limited-capacity resource pool shared between processing and storage operations. Rather, they are consistent with a multiple-component model in which separate resource pools support the processing and storage functions of working memory.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.71

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • There is a substantial domain-general component to working memory tasks.

    “There is a substantial domain-general component to such working memory tasks (e.g., Bayliss, Jarrold, Gunn, & Baddeley, 2003; Kane, Hambrick, Tuholski, Wilhelm, Payne, & Engle, 2004; Swanson & Sachse-Lee, 2001) that has been interpreted as reflecting central executive function.”

    From Working memory in children with reading disabilities (2006) · cites this paper as Bayliss, Jarrold, Gunn, & Baddeley, 2003

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bayliss, D. M., Jarrold, C., Gunn, D. M., & Baddeley, A. D.
Affiliations
University of Bristol (GB)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Published
2003
Volume
132
Issue
1
Pages
71-92
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W1985525819
Cited by
427
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 29
FWCI
26.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
Keywords
working memory, complex span, individual differences, processing efficiency, storage capacity, domain-general processing, academic performance, children, adults, resource allocation
MeSH terms
Adult, Age Factors, Child, Educational Status, Humans, Memory, Reaction Time, Space Perception, Speech Perception, Visual Perception

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