Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,899

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies.

Uttal, David H., Meadow, Nathaniel G., Tipton, Elizabeth, Hand, Linda L., Alden, Alison R., Warren, Christopher, Newcombe, Nora S.·2013·Psychological Bulletin
DOI 10.1037/a0028446
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Having good spatial skills strongly predicts achievement and attainment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields (e.g., Shea, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2001; Wai, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2009). Improving spatial skills is therefore of both theoretical and practical importance. To determine whether and to what extent training and experience can improve these skills, we meta-analyzed 217 research studies investigating the magnitude, moderators, durability, and generalizability of training on spatial skills. After eliminating outliers, the average effect size (Hedges's g) for training relative to control was 0.47 (SE = 0.04). Training effects were stable and were not affected by delays between training and posttesting. Training also transferred to other spatial tasks that were not directly trained. We analyzed the effects of several moderators, including the presence and type of control groups, sex, age, and type of training. Additionally, we included a theoretically motivated typology of spatial skills that emphasizes 2 dimensions: intrinsic versus extrinsic and static versus dynamic (Newcombe & Shipley, in press). Finally, we consider the potential educational and policy implications of directly training spatial skills. Considered together, the results suggest that spatially enriched education could pay substantial dividends in increasing participation in mathematics, science, and engineering.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0028446

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 21 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Uttal, D. H., Meadow, N. G., Tipton, E., Hand, L. L., Alden, A. R., Warren, C., & Newcombe, N. S.
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2013-03
Volume
139
Issue
2
Pages
352-402
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
DOI
10.1037/a0028446
OpenAlex
W2009158552
Cited by
1,899
References
21
FWCI
8.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (SBE0541957)
  • US Department of Education (R305H020088)

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.