Gender Differences in Academic Performance of High School Students: The Relationship with Cardiorespiratory Fitness, Muscle Endurance, and Test Anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between cardiorespiratory fitness, muscle endurance, and test anxiety levels with academic performance in both genders of high school students. Methods: A total of 545 grade nine students (mean age: 14.1 ± 0.4 years old) participated in this study. Final grades in language, mathematics, and science and the overall mean average of all courses were used to assess academic performance. Cardiorespiratory fitness levels were estimated using the 20 meter shuttle run test and muscle endurance was measured using push-up and curl-up tests. Participants also completed a questionnaire for the assessment of test anxiety. Independent t -tests, correlations, and linear regression analysis were performed. Results: Results show that female students ( n = 292) had significantly higher grades in language and science as well as a higher overall mean average than male students ( P < 0.001). Moreover, we observed that female students had significant greater correlation coefficient values than male students for cardiorespiratory fitness levels and muscle endurance with academic performance ( P < 0.05). Finally, linear regression analysis showed multiple differences between male and female students regarding independent predictors of academic performance ( P < 0.01). Conclusions: Results of the present study indicate that the academic performances of male and female students are different in high school and that these distinct academic performances appear to be explained by different variables.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".