You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Sex Differences in Mathematics and Reading Achievement Are Inversely Related: Within- and Across-Nation Assessment of 10 Years of PISA Data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0057988 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gijsbert Stoet, David C. Geary |
| Abstract |
We analyzed one decade of data collected by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), including the mathematics and reading performance of nearly 1.5 million 15 year olds in 75 countries. Across nations, boys scored higher than girls in mathematics, but lower than girls in reading. The sex difference in reading was three times as large as in mathematics. There was considerable variation in the extent of the sex differences between nations. There are countries without a sex difference in mathematics performance, and in some countries girls scored higher than boys. Boys scored lower in reading in all nations in all four PISA assessments (2000, 2003, 2006, 2009). Contrary to several previous studies, we found no evidence that the sex differences were related to nations' gender equality indicators. Further, paradoxically, sex differences in mathematics were consistently and strongly inversely correlated with sex differences in reading: Countries with a smaller sex difference in mathematics had a larger sex difference in reading and vice versa. We demonstrate that this was not merely a between-nation, but also a within-nation effect. This effect is related to relative changes in these sex differences across the performance continuum: We did not find a sex difference in mathematics among the lowest performing students, but this is where the sex difference in reading was largest. In contrast, the sex difference in mathematics was largest among the higher performing students, and this is where the sex difference in reading was smallest. The implication is that if policy makers decide that changes in these sex differences are desired, different approaches will be needed to achieve this for reading and mathematics. Interventions that focus on high-achieving girls in mathematics and on low achieving boys in reading are likely to yield the strongest educational benefits. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 205 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 36 | 18% |
| United Kingdom | 18 | 9% |
| Canada | 9 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 5 | 2% |
| Spain | 3 | 1% |
| Australia | 3 | 1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Ireland | 2 | <1% |
| Finland | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 21 | 10% |
| Unknown | 104 | 51% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 170 | 83% |
| Scientists | 19 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 8 | 4% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 3% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 340 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 326 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 65 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 52 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 40 | 12% |
| Researcher | 28 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 24 | 7% |
| Other | 63 | 19% |
| Unknown | 68 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 88 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 67 | 20% |
| Mathematics | 17 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 15 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 3% |
| Other | 61 | 18% |
| Unknown | 83 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 303. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 July 2023.
All research outputs
#116,949
of 25,901,238 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#1,830
of 225,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#638
of 210,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#32
of 5,445 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,901,238 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225,915 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 210,183 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,445 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.