Relationship between interference control and working memory with academic performance in high school students: The Adolescent Student Academic Performance longitudinal study (ASAP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between interference control and working memory with academic performance in both female and male high school students using a longitudinal design. METHODS: One hundred and eighty-seven grade seventh to ninth students (mean age: 13.1 ± 1.0 years old) from a French-Canadian high school located in Montreal, Canada, completed a 3-year prospective study. Interference control (Flanker task), working memory (N-back task) and academic performance (grades in science, mathematics, language and the overall average) were assessed every year during the 3-year study. RESULTS: Female students had significantly higher grades than male students for overall average, science and language at year 1 as well as higher grades for overall average and language at year 3 (p < 0.05). However, no differences were found between genders for any measures of interference control or working memory at year 1 and 3. Furthermore, we noted that the relations between cognitive control with our academic performance measures differ according to gender. Finally, our results showed that neither interference control nor working memory seem to be the primary predictor for any of our academic performance measures in both female and male students. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the present study indicate that cognitive control measures were not able to explain the gender differences in academic performance. Our results also show that interference control and working memory were weakly related to academic performance and that these associations had a poor ability to predict variations in academic performance during a 3-year period.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".