Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 369

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Gender differences in mathematics: an integrative psychological approach

·2005·Choice Reviews Online

Abstract

Preface 1. Research on the women and mathematics issue: a personal case history Susan Chipman 2. The perseverative search for sex differences in mathematic ability Paula Caplan and Jeremy Caplan 3. A psychobiosocial model: why females are sometimes > and sometimes < males in math achievement Diane Halpern, Jonathan Wai and Amanda Saw 4. Gender differences in math: cognitive processes in an expanded framework James Byrnes 5. Cognitive contributions to sex differences in math performance James M. Royer and Laura M. Garofoli 6. Spatial ability as a mediator of gender differences on mathematics tests: a biological-environmental framework M. Beth Casey, Ronald Nuttal and Elizabeth Pezaris 7. Examining gender-related differential item functioning using insights from psychometric and multicontext theory Rob Ibarra 8. The gender-gap artifact: women's underperformance in quantitative domains through the lens of stereotype threat Paul Davies and Steve Spencer 9. 'Math is hard!' (Barbie, 1994): responses of threat vs challenge mediated arousal of stereotypes alleging intellectual inferiority Talia Ben Zee, Cristina M. Carrasquillo, Alison M. L. Ching, Tattiya J. Kliengklom, Kristen L. McDonald, Daniel C. Newhall, Gillian E. Patton, Tiffany D. Stewart, Tonya Stoddard, Michael Inzlicht and Steve Fein 10. The role of ethnicity on the gender gap in mathematics Alyssa Walters and Lisa Brown 11. The gender gap in mathematics: merely a step function Sophia Catsambis 12. 'I can, but I don't want to': the impact of parents, interests, and activities on gender differences in math Janis E. Jacobs, Pamela Davis-Kean, Martha Bleeker, Jacquelynne S. Eccles and Oksana Malachuk 13. Gender effects on mathematics achievement: mediating role of state and trait self-regulation Eunsook Hong, Harold O'Neil and David Feldon 14. Gender differences in mathematics self efficacy beliefs Frank Pajares 15. Integrative conclusion Ann Gallagher and James Kaufman.

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 · 10.5860/choice.43-1619

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 369

Metadata

Venue
Choice Reviews Online
Published
2005-11-01
Volume
43
Issue
03
Pages
43-1619-43-1619
ISSN
  • 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-8253
OpenAlex
W1640731893
Cited by
369
References
0
Type
book review
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Gender differences in mathematics: an integrative psychological approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.43-1619
The paper
Gender differences in mathematics: an integrative psychological approach. (2005). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.43-1619

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.