CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 40Psychometric Methodologies and TestingEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessCognitive Abilities and Testing

Examining academic performance across gender differently: Measurement invariance and latent mean differences using bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals

Open access
Tsaousis, Ioannis, Alghamdi, Mohammed H.·2022·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.896638PMC PMC9388777
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The aim of this study was threefold: First, to examine the dimensionality of the construct of General Academic Ability (GAA) at the subscale level providing additional insights over and above on the conceptualization of the construct. Second, to explore different degrees of measurement invariance of the GAA across gender using more recent advancements in the examination of Measurement Invariance (i.e., Bias-Corrected bootstrap Confidence Intervals). Third, to examine gender differences across the different facets of the GAA at the latent mean level. The sample consisted of 1,800 high school graduates who applied for higher education in Saudi Arabia. The results from the analysis indicated that the hierarchical model with one higher-order factor (i.e., general academic ability) and four lower-order cognitive factors (i.e., verbal ability, quantitative ability, scholastic aptitude, and GPA) exhibited an excellent fit to the data. In terms of the measurement invariance hypothesis, it was found that the hierarchical model exhibits full configural and metric invariance and partial scalar invariance. Finally, using the Latent Mean Difference procedure, the results showed gender differences in the Verbal and GPA domains. Although significant differences were also found in the Scholastic aptitude domain, this finding is not stable due to several non-invariant items within the domain. In both cases, females scored higher than males. Finally, regarding the higher-order factor (GAA), the results showed that females scored higher than males. There were no significant differences in the Quantitative domain.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.896638

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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 no significant influence of gender on academic performance.

    “This finding corroborates broader trends in the literature, which showed no significant influence of gender on academic performance [45,46].”

    From Relationships Between Physical Activity, Sleep, Psychological Well-Being, and Academic Performance Among Native American College Students (2026) · cites this paper as [45]

    The Discussion reports significant gender differences in GPA and verbal performance, as well as in the higher-order general academic ability factor, with females scoring higher. Although it found no significant difference in the quantitative domain, that narrower result does not support a general claim of no significant gender influence on academic performance. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Alanazi N. K. (2014). The Validity of the general Aptitude test (GAT) to Predict male Saudi students’ academic Performance in the first Semester. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Northern Colorado.
  2. Mullis I. V. S. Martin M. O. Loveless T. (2016). Years of TIMSS: International Trends in Mathematics and Science Achievement, Curriculum, and Instruction. Vol. 20. Chestnut Hill, MA: IEA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Tsaousis, I., & Alghamdi, M. H.
Affiliations
  • National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
  • King Saud University (SA)
Corresponding author
Tsaousis, Ioannis
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2022-08-05
Volume
13
Pages
896638-896638
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2022.896638
PMC
PMC9388777
OpenAlex
W4289889305
Cited by
40
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5
FWCI
4.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
gender differences, measurement invariance, latent mean differences, higher-order factor structure, verbal ability, quantitative ability, academic aptitude, GPA, university applicants, Saudi Arabia

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