مقایسه هوش پسر و دختر بر ابعاد کارآمدی خانواده

Comparing the Intelligence of Boys and Girls on the Dimensions of Family Efficiency

Ali Rasooli Fashtami,[1] Tooraj Hashemi,[2] Azar Kiamarsi,[3] Ozra Ghaffari[4]

[1] - PhD student in Educational Psychology, Ardabil Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ardabil, Iran rasouli5334@yahoo.com

[1] - Corresponding author, full professor, Department of Psychology, Tabriz University, Iran, tourajhashemi46@tabrizu.ac.ir

[1] - Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Ardabil Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ardabil, Iran a.kiamarsi52@gmail.com

[1] - Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Ardabil Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ardabil, Iran azra.ghaffari@yahoo.com

Abstract

Introduction: Raven's Progressive Matrices Intelligence Quotient (IQ) test is one of the valid intelligence tests that is used to measure general intelligence. This research was conducted to compare the general intelligence of male and female students on the dimensions of family efficiency and on the basis of children's Raven intelligence.

Methods: The research method was causal-comparative and the statistical population was all elementary school students in Rasht city in the academic year 2020-2021. The sample of the study was 1643 elementary students (808 boys and 835 girls), who were selected by cluster random sampling from two privileged and semi-privileged areas. In this study, the children's Raven color matrix test and the non-verbal part of the Stanford Binet version 5 test were used to collect data. Research data were analyzed by independent t-test and multivariate analysis of variance.

Results: The results showed that there was no significant difference between the intelligence of girls and boys in the first, second, third, fourth and sixth grades, but the difference in intelligence between girls and boys in the fifth grade was significant, with the superiority of boys. There was also a significant difference between the mean total score of intelligence of girls and boys in educational levels. In other words, there was a significant difference in the intelligence scores of the students in different grades, and as the grade increased, the age also increased, so did the intelligence.

Conclusion: By examining the background of the research, it was found that social factors, especially the family, could have a great impact on intellectual functions.

Keywords: Girl and boy, Family, Raven's IQ test, student

Received: 11/ April/ 2023       Accepted:  3/ May/ 2023 

Introduction:

Among the effective intervention approaches are psychological interventions that emphasize the role of parents in the development of children's cognitive, language and communication abilities. Studies have shown that parents' participation can have an effect on cognitive and social development, academic progress, and health and safety of children with intellectual disabilities (1).

Although the importance of education of both parents for the development of children is known in scientific literature, more attention has been paid to the role of maternal education in children's intelligence. Mothers often act as main careers and spend more time with their children than fathers (2). As a result, they are thought to have a great impact on the child breeding environment (3). In order to grow students with suitable and adequate intelligence growth, parents need to have good social economic contexts to provide a good balanced diet for their children from fertilization throughout childhood to early adulthood. Also, this requires good schools with stimulant and favorable environments for learning (4).

Research in psychology has been constantly trying to explain and understand the impact of gender differences (5). There is a consensus that the origin of gender differences is a complex combination of nature and nurturing (6). Individual differences in childhood intelligence (IQ) has a long-term impact on a wide range of important consequences of life, including academic achievement (7), access to educational facilities (8), job success (9), health (10), and welfare (11). One of the strongest predictors of IQ differences of children is parental academic achievement (12, 13). A large -scale analysis of the data of seven countries showed that parents' education is related to the differences in children's intelligence even greater than family wealth (14).

While the findings have constantly shown gender differences in specific cognitive domains such as verbal and spatial abilities (15), there has been no consensus on the existence of gender differences in general cognitive ability or general intelligence. Waschl and Burns (16) obtained similar results from different studies that consider different experiments, indicating that gender differences, if not trivial, are very small. Most studies concluded that there is male superiority (17, 18). While some reported that women in Factor G work better than men (19, 20). Frik, Ferrara, and Newcombe (21) found gender differences in a task of mental rotation. Palejwala and Fine (22), considered gender differences in visual processing through block design and assembly tasks and found that there were no gender differences between the ages of 2 to 3, while differences appear at the ages of 4 to 7. In contrast, Keith, Reynolds, Roberts, winter and Austin (23) reported gender differences in short-term memory using the hidden variable approach. The performance of girls at the age of 5 to 13 was better than boys and boys at the age of 14 to 17. Lutchmaya, Baron-Cohen and Raggatt (24) showed that girls are superior to boys in vocabulary, so that 2-year-old girls use words more significantly than boys. Zambrana, Ystrom, and Pons (25) recorded gender differences in language understanding at the age of 18 and 36 months for the benefit of girls at both time.

Intelligence increases with age until about 18 years old, and then, in most cases, adult life is relatively stagnant (4). Accumulated evidence about gender differences in cognitive abilities throughout life shows that gender differences in cognition become larger or more common during adolescence (26). One explanation considers the effect of age: according to developmental theory, gender differences in intelligence can differ between age groups and are related to differences in the development of puberty between the sexes (27). Although several studies show a significant interaction between age and gender (28, 29), other researchers reported findings that were inconsistent with this developmental theory (30, 31).

Kpolovie (32) stated that intelligence can be effectively defined, as assessed by culture-fair intelligence tests, and emphasized as the general mental ability to learn quickly, respond to new problems, and correct abstractly. Likewise, intelligence is a fundamental factor that can determine academic progress in schools and plays an important role in the future success of students. Similarly, intelligence affects the student's capacity to acquire new knowledge and information and use it as a basis for processing and solving a problem. People's cognitive abilities, such as reasoning, remembering, understanding, need to learn, cognitive flexibility, and communication skills, are strongly related to intelligence. In addition, IQ is a common term to describe a set of mental functions that include reasoning, planning, problem-solving skills, abstract thinking, conceptual understanding, language use, and learning.

For this purpose, IQ is simply called as a person's ability to respond appropriately to received stimuli (33). Also, from a medical point of view, Adeboye et al. (34) stated that the IQ is a numerical representation of a person's intelligence level compared to the statistical distribution for his age range.       Naderi et al. (35) showed that intelligence for both genders is not related to academic achievement. However, Furnham and Buchanan (36) discovered that intelligence differs between males and females. According to the researchers' findings, men had a much higher estimate of general intelligence than women. Sluis et al. (37) found that gender differences in intelligence test subtests are due to gender changes in general intelligence. With the exception of alternative subtests, males performed better than females in all subtests (information, arithmetic, and matrix thinking).

Giofrè et al. (38) in their research on broad abilities showed a significant difference in favor of men for visual and crystallized intelligence, while the findings on female/male differences in intelligence were insignificant. On the contrary, the performance of women was superior in the coefficient of processing speed.

Colom and Garcia-Lopez (39) tested more than 4,000 high school students with the Inductive Reasoning Test, the Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM), and the Culture Fair Intelligence Test. They concluded that since no systematic differences were found in intelligence measures, gender differences in general intelligence probably did not exist.

In the experimental investigation, it was found that there are many studies on IQ, the differences between boys and girls and its environmental determinants, their general intellectual performance and other abilities all over the world, but there is no general consensus on the overall superiority of one gender. Only some research has pointed to the partial superiority of some abilities, most of which have been conducted on a single standardized sample; therefore, it is limited to a single country, or it has been done with a limited sample size, so it leads to different psychometric approaches in data analysis. Furthermore, previous studies have mainly focused on adults, while young participants have often been neglected. The purpose of the present research is to investigate the intelligence status of elementary school boys and girls in Rasht city (first to sixth grades) and to consider whether there is any difference between them or not.

Research Method:

The research method was causal-comparative, and statistical population was all 48,500 elementary school boys and girls in Rasht who were studying in the academic year of 2020-2021. To determine the sample size, the formula  was used, which the number was 589. To increase the external validity and the possibility of dropping out, the research sample became 1643 elementary school students (808 boys and 835 girls). The inclusion criteria of the selected sample were based on cluster random sampling from two privileged and semi-privileged areas (the privileged schools of the city, such as Goslar Street, and the semi-privileged schools of the city, such as the Iraq-Bridge area of Rasht). The sampling method was such that after obtaining permission from the General Administrative Office in Rasht, the schools were divided, following a lottery, a number of schools were selected equally from the two regions, and approximately 275 people from each grade were chosen. With the coordination of the principal, a lottery was held among the classes of each grade. Then, with the help of the relevant teachers, the researcher appeared in the class, guided the students to the exam hall, and based on the Corona health protocol with a proper distance, groups of 10 students were tested. The exclusion criteria included lack of motivation or unwillingness to complete the questionnaire and its incomplete completion. In order to provide a suitable environment for the optimal implementation of the research and to increase its internal validity, some solutions were applied. That is, the distribution and collection of questionnaires were carried out by the researcher to ensure high accuracy and prevent intentional or accidental deficiencies. After the questionnaire was delivered to the students, the researcher carefully explained the method of answering the questionnaire so that there was no ambiguity, and the subjects fully understood, and the questionnaire was collected in a specified time (15 minutes). The parents and students were given sufficient assurance that the answer sheets will be confidential and will not have any effect on the students' exams and grades. The measuring instrument in this research was the progressive color matrix test for children.

The Colored Progressive Matrices (CPM): The Colored progressive matrices were first standardized in England in 1949 on 627 Scottish schoolchildren. At that time, the population under study was different from Raven's progressive matrices, because it was specifically designed for children aged five to eleven and for people who were elderly, mentally retarded, physically disabled, and had no common language (40). Raven's Colored Progressive Matrices consists of 36 problems which are divided into three sets (A, Ab and B), each containing twelve figures. Every set consists of a single painting or matrix of a pattern from which a certain piece is missing. Below the matrix, there are six printed patterns, probably belonging to the gaps of above paintings. In the meantime, the respondent should choose which of the six options matches the best (41).

Therefore, "the respondent must infer a relationship in the completed part of the matrix and then apply the relationship with the incomplete part". Since the test requires the test taker to compare, understand and organize space, so the test should be able to stimulate the analysis of visual stimuli and test taker's thinking (42).

In Raven, Raven and Court's (40) study on children aged 4 to 11 years old in Slovakia, the confidence coefficient was 0.85. Also, the experimental results that were repeated in Singapore a year later reported a coefficient of 0.71, while the outcome of the test, which was applied in Nigeria 6 months later, was reported to be 0.59. Given that intelligence tests are validated every 10 years, the researcher has also reported the correlation of children's progressive color matrix scores with Stanford Binet version 5 test (non -verbal sector) as 0.74, which is high and acceptable validity. Besides, for evaluating the validity using the retest method, the correlation coefficient was calculated twice and the amount of 0.75 was obtained, which was significant at 0.01.

Findings:

Table 1 shows individually the mean and standard deviation of the first to sixth grade male and female students' intelligence scores in Rasht.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Intelligence Scores in different Grades and Genders

As can be seen in Table 1, the mean intelligence scores, standard deviation, kurtosis, skewness and the number of elementary school male and female students across six grades are known.

In Table 2, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test index and sig. value for the first grade intelligence are 0.97 and p=0.29, for the second grade 1.15 and p=0.09, for the third 1.18 and p=0.12, for the fourth 1.22 and p=0.07, for the fifth 1.08 and p=0.18, and for the sixth grade 1.23 and p=0.06. Because Sig. values are more than 0.05, the data distribution is normal.

Table 3. Males' and Females' Intelligence Differences in Different Grades in Rasht

  Based on Independent Samples Test                                             

As shown in Table 3, the results of independent-samples t-test reveal that the difference between the males and females mean intelligence scores is 1.92, 2.18, -0.45, 2.00, and -0.72; t=1.60 with degrees of freedom df=311, 263, 272, 273, 279, 1641, respectively, which is not statistically significant since p= 0.56, 0.30, 0.65, 0.46, 0.47 and 0.11≤  0.05. Therefore, there is no significant difference between males and females intelligence scores in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 and the total number of males and females students. However, the difference between males and females intelligence scores in grade 5 is significant; t (240) = 2.70, p=0.008.

Table 4. Results of ANOVA for Students' Intelligence in Different Grades

Table 4 shows that F (5, 1631) = 3.85, p< 0/002. Therefore, the results of analysis of variance (ANOVA) reveal that there is a significant difference between elementary school girls' and boys' Raven's colored progressive matrices in different grades in Rasht.

Table 5. The Results of Post Hoc Tests for Different Grades

Post-hoc comparisons in Table 5 indicate that difference between intelligence scores of grade 1 and grade 3 (M=-1.06, p<0.01) and grade 6 (M=1.67, p<0.00) is statistically meaningful. Grade 2 scores are statistically meaningful with grade 6 scores (M= - 0.97, p<0.03). Grade 3 scores are statistically meaningful with scores of grade 1 (M= - 1.06, p<0.01), grade 4 (M= 0.89, p<0.05), and grade 5 (M= 1.05, p<0.02).  Grade 4 scores are statistically meaningful with scores of grade 3 (M= -0.89, p<0.05) and grade 6 (M= -1.50, p<0.00).  Grade 5 scores are also statistically meaningful with scores of grade 3 (M= -1.05, p<0.02) and grade 6 (M= -1.66, p<0.00). Finally, grade 6 scores are statistically meaningful with scores of grade 1 (M= 1.66, p<0.00), grade 2 (M= 0.97, p<0.03), grade 4 (M= 1.50, p<0.01) and grade 5 (M= 1.66, p<0.00).

Discussion and Conclusion:

The present study was conducted with the aim of comparing the intelligence of elementary school girls and boys in Rasht city. By comparing the results of this research with those of other studies, it can be found that a similar picture of intellectual development is not obtained, that is, there is no difference between boys and girls in intellectual development. Therefore, in the early years of school, intellectual development does not have any significant difference in intelligence scores of boys and girls. Our results show that there is no gender difference in Raven's intelligence in the first, second, third, fourth and sixth grades based on the "average intelligence score" index. These findings are in harmony with Colom and Garcı́a-López (39), Waschl and Burns (16), and Naderi (35). On the other hand, the results are inconsistent with Halpern et al. (15), Flores et al. (17), Jackson and Rushton (18), Arden and Plomin (19), Reynolds et al. (20), Palejwala and Fine (22), Keith et al. (23), Lutchmaya et al. (24), Zambrana et al. (25), Furnham and Buchanan (36),  Sluis et al. (37), and  Giofrè et al. (38).

In this research, it has also been shown that there is a significant difference in the mean intelligence scores of girls and boys in the fifth grade (in favor of boys). These findings are in agreement with the research of Halpern et al. (15), Flores et al. (17), Jackson and Rushton (18), Arden and Plomin (19), Reynolds et al. (20), Palejwala and Fine (22), Keith et al. (23), Lutchmaya et al. (24), Zambrana et al. (25), Furnham and Buchanan (36), Sluis et al. (37), and Giofrè et al. (38). However, there is a discrepancy with Colom and Garcı́a-López (39), Waschl and Burns (16), and Naderi (35). One explanation can be because a large part of the test components of the Raven's progressive matrices focuses on measuring the subject's mental rotation ability, and considering that Lin and Petersen (43) and Voyer, Voyer, and Bryden (44) confirmed that there was a significant male advantage in mental rotation tasks and noted that tasks involving three-dimensional rotations (as opposed to rotations of simpler shapes in the image) produced the largest effect sizes, probably because of females' problem in mentally rotating objects in depth, male students of this grade also outperformed females.

Another explanation could be that the underlying mechanism of the growth pattern of the emergence of gender differences in mental rotation from the biological point of view, especially the role of sexual hormones and gender differences in the structure and function of the brain, attracted much attention. Among the biological variables, endocrine factors such as sex hormones have been considered as important ones (45). Sexual hormones, including androgens, estrogen and progesteroids, can affect a wide range of organs, including the brain. Their most impact occurs in two sensitive periods of growth: the first in prenatal or infancy and the second in the post -birth period. It has been suggested that these sensitive periods in hormonal secretion are related to gender differences in cognitive abilities (45). The effect of age can also be considered to explain these results: according to growth theory, gender differences in intelligence can vary between age groups and are related to the difference in maturity between the two sexes (27). Although several studies show that there is significant interaction between age and gender (28, 29), most of the empirical findings on this subject can be explained by different (but relevant) approaches that encompass many current frameworks related to gender differences: socio-cultural, evolutionary, and hormonal and brain science approaches (45). Most of these theories confirm the existence of both biological factors (such as physical differences, evolved traits, and hormonal effects) and socio-cultural ones (for example, learning social and cultural role, and stereotypical beliefs). Looking at the differences in gender-related cognitive tasks, socio-cultural theories suggest that gender differences are aroused from social, cultural, psychological and other environmental factors (46). Five decades ago, Waber (47) assumed that gender differences in cognitive abilities can be explained at maturity. He suggested that through the mediating role of the hemisphere specialization, late maturers have better spatial abilities, while early maturers have better verbal abilities, and these findings support better intelligence performance in the fifth grade male students, which have been between the ages of 11 and 12 years and at the beginning of puberty.

Also, there is a significant difference in the total intelligence scores of boys and girls in the pairwise difference between the educational levels. In other words, there was a significant difference between the intelligence scores of the first grade students and the third and sixth grade students. Furthermore, there is a significant difference in the intelligence between the second grade and the sixth grade, the third grade with the first, fourth and fifth grade, the fourth grade with the third and sixth grade, the fifth grade with the third and sixth grade, and the sixth grade with the second, fourth and fifth grade. The researches related to the age difference in the field of intelligence also indicate that the growth curve has a very steep slope in the first 12 years of life. That is, the IQ increases with age until about 18 years old and then, in most cases of adult life, it is relatively stagnant (4).

In general, it can be said that with increasing age and entering a higher educational level, the cognitive ability of students increases, and they can solve more mental problems and answer more questions from Raven's IQ test, which measures general intelligence, correctly. Hence, it can be observed that the IQ scores of the students of lower grades, such as grades 1, 2, and 3, have a significant difference with the IQ scores of higher grades, such as grades 4, 5, and 6, in pairs. This study opens a new dimension in the studies of gender intelligence and academic achievement during the school period. Tracing the change in the structure of intelligence in the process of school education and its effect on the academic success of girls and boys provides the possibility of tracking an important period in the development of intelligence. In addition, the role of social factors especially parents can be considered in the critical period of development to increase children's intelligence.

Limitations

One of the limitations of this research was the cross-sectional nature of the study and differences in individual characteristics, psychological characteristics, cultural and social life differences, which were beyond the control of the researcher. Furthermore, despite a lot of effort, in order to control disturbing variables, the influence of some factors such as the passage of time and the experience of the subjects cannot be ignored.

It is suggested that the IQ test be conducted frequently for students because this allows teachers and school administrators to identify the abilities and overall progress of students in social studies. It is recommended for parents to be educated about their children's intellectual abilities, so that they can take timely action to increase their intelligence abilities, especially in the primary period. Also, set realistic expectations based on their children's ability and academic performance. In order to achieve more comprehensive and accurate results, the researchers are suggested to carry out the research on a wider level to increase the generalizability of the results. Other intelligence measuring tools such as Wechsler and Stanford Binet are recommended.

Acknowledgements

This article is extracted from the doctoral dissertation of the first author in the field of educational psychology with the code of 119481372775552139136833 and the date of approval of 21/11/2018 at Islamic Azad University, Ardabil Branch. Executive permission for this study has been obtained from Gilan General Directorate of Education, and a letter of introduction to number 506/129525/3700 dated 06/31/2019 and permission to number 3702/65027/397 dated 06/31/2019 from the Ministry of Education Management in District 2 of Rasht has been got for introducing to schools. The authors hereby sincerely thank the principals and teachers of the schools of Rasht and the parents of the students who provided the necessary cooperation to conduct the research, especially the students who participated in this research.

Conflict of Interest

Conducting this research has not resulted in any conflict of interest for the authors, and its results have been reported completely transparent and without bias.

Ethical Considerations

In this research, ethical standards including the principle of respect and confidentiality, preventing the disclosure of the obtained information from subjects with their real names, the authority and freedom of the subjects to participate or leave the training, and obtaining written consent from the subjects, have been observed.

References

1. Guralnick M.J. Early intervention for children with intellectual disabilities: An update. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. 2017; 30(2): 211-29.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3148.2005.00270.x

2. Harding JF, Morris PA, Hughes D. The relationship between maternal education and children's academic outcomes: A theoretical framework. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2015; 77 (1): 60-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12156
3. Passareli-Carrazzoni P, Pereira-Lima K, Loureiro SR. Children’s working memory: Maternal and child sociodemographic, cognitive, and mental health predictors. Psychology & Neuroscience. 2018;11(2):146. https://doi.org/10.1037/pne0000122
4. Trzaskowski M, Harlaar N, Arden R, Krapohl E, Rimfeld K, McMillan A, et al. Genetic influence on family socioeconomic status and children's intelligence. Intelligence. 2014; 42:83-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.11.002
5. Geary DC. Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences: American Psychological Association. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1037/12072-000
6. Miller DI, Halpern DF. The new science of cognitive sex differences. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2014;18(1):37-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.10.011
7. Deary IJ, Strand S, Smith P, Fernandes C. Intelligence and educational achievement. Intelligence. 2007;35(1):13-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.02.001
8. Strenze T. Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal research. Intelligence. 2007; 35(5):401-426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.09.004
9. Schmidt FL, Hunter J. General mental ability in the world of work: occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of personality and social psychology. 2004;86(1):162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.162
10. Carter JL, Richards M, Hotopf M, Hatch SL. The roles of non-cognitive and cognitive skills in the life course development of adult health inequalities. Social Science & Medicine. 2019; 232:190-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.04.041
11. Backhouse EV, McHutchison CA, Cvoro V, Shenkin SD, Wardlaw JM. Cognitive ability, education and socioeconomic status in childhood and risk of post-stroke depression in later life: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one. 2018;13(7):e0200525. https://doi.org/10.137/journal.pone.0200525
12. Duncan GJ, Magnuson K. Socioeconomic status and cognitive functioning: moving from correlation to causation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science. 2012; 3(3):377-386. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1176
13. Hernandez DJ, Napierala JS. Mother's Education and Children's Outcomes: How Dual-Generation Programs Offer Increased Opportunities for America's Families. Disparities among America's Children. No. 2. Foundation for Child Development. 2014.
14. Rindermann H, Ceci SJ. Parents’ education is more important than their wealth in shaping their children’s intelligence: Results of 19 samples in seven countries at different developmental levels. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 2018; 41(4):298-326.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353218799481

15. Halpern DF, Benbow CP, Geary DC, Gur RC, Hyde JS, Gernsbacher MA. The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological science in the public interest. 2007; 8(1). 1-15. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x
16. Waschl N, Burns NR. Sex differences in inductive reasoning: A research synthesis using meta-analytic techniques. Personality and Individual Differences. 2020; 164:109959.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109959

17. Flores-Mendoza C, Widaman KF, Rindermann H, Primi R, Mansur-Alves M, Pena CC. Cognitive sex differences in reasoning tasks: Evidence from Brazilian samples of educational settings. Intelligence. 2013;41(1):70-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2012.11.002
18. Jackson DN, Rushton JP. Males have greater g: Sex differences in general mental ability from 100,000 17-to 18-year-olds on the Scholastic Assessment Test. Intelligence. 2006; 34(5):479-486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.03.005
19. Arden R, Plomin R. Sex differences in variance of intelligence across childhood. Personality and Individual Differences. 2006; 41(1):39-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.027
20. Reynolds MR, Keith TZ, Ridley KP, Patel PG. Sex differences in latent general and broad cognitive abilities for children and youth: Evidence from higher-order MG-MACS and MIMIC models. Intelligence. 2008; 36(3):236-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2007.06.003
21. Frick A, Ferrara K, Newcombe NS. Using a touch screen paradigm to assess the development of mental rotation between 3½ and 5½ years of age. Cognitive processing. 2013;14:117-127. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10339-012-0534-0
22. Palejwala MH, Fine JG. Gender differences in latent cognitive abilities in children aged 2 to 7. Intelligence. 2015;48:96-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.11.004.
23. Keith TZ, Reynolds MR, Roberts LG, Winter AL, Austin CA. Sex differences in latent cognitive abilities ages 5 to 17: Evidence from the Differential Ability Scales—Second Edition. Intelligence. 2011; 39(5):389-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2011.06.008
24. Lutchmaya S, Baron-Cohen S, Raggatt P. Foetal testosterone and vocabulary size in 18-and 24-month-old infants. Infant Behavior and Development. 2001; 24(4):418-424.

          https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(02)00087-5

25. Zambrana IM, Ystrom E, Pons F. Impact of gender, maternal education, and birth order on the development of language comprehension: A longitudinal study from 18 to 36 months of age. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics. 2012; 33(2):146-155.

        doi: 10.1097/DBP.0b013e31823d4f83.

26. Herlitz A, Reuterskiöld L, Lovén J, Thilers PP, Rehnman J. Cognitive sex differences are not magnified as a function of age, sex hormones, or puberty development during early adolescence. Developmental neuropsychology. 2013; 38(3):167-179.

        https://doi.org/10.1080/87565641.2012.759580

27. Lynn R. Sex differences in intelligence and brain size: A developmental theory. intelligence. 1999; 27(1) 1-1. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=fa&as_sdt.
28. Arden R, Plomin R. Sex differences in variance of intelligence across childhood. Personality and Individual Differences. 2006; 41(1):39-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.027
29. Lynn R, Kanazawa S. A longitudinal study of sex differences in intelligence at ages 7, 11 and 16 years. Personality and Individual Differences. 2011;51(3):321-324.

        https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.02.028

31. Savage-McGlynn E. Sex differences in intelligence in younger and older participants of the Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices Plus. Personality and Individual Differences. 2012;53(2):137-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.013
32. Kpolovie P. Intelligence and academic achievement: A longitudinal survey. International Journal of Recent Scientific Research. 2016;7(5):11423-11439.

        https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=fa&as_sdt

33. Tias PA, Istamar S, Atmoko A, Corebima AD. The contribution of intelligence quotient (IQ) on biology academic achievement of senior high school students in Medan, Indonesia. International Journal of Educational Policy Research and Review. 2015; 2(10):141-147. http://dx.doi.org/10.15739/IJEPRR.023
34. Adeboye M, Katibi O, Adegboye O, Ojuawo A, Afolabi J, Buhari O, et al. Intelligence Quotient of Neurologically Impaired Children Attending Neurology Clinic in a Nigerian Tertiary Institution. 2018. https://uilspace.unilorin.edu.ng/handle/20.500.12484/9083

35   Naderi H, Abdullah R, Aizan HT, Sharir J. Intelligence and academic achievement: an investigation of gender differences. Life science journal. 2010: 7 (1),83-87.

http://www.sciencepub.net

36. Furnham A, Buchanan T. Personality, gender and self-perceived intelligence. Personality and individual differences. 2005; 39(3):543-555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.011
37. Sluis S, Posthuma D, Dolan C, Geus E, Colom R, Boomsma D. Sex differences on the Dutch WAIS-III. Dermatol Int. 2006; 34:273-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2005.08.002
38. Giofrè D, Allen K, Toffalini E, Caviola S. The Impasse on Gender Differences in Intelligence: a Meta-Analysis on WISC Batteries. Educational Psychology Review. 2022; 1-26. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-022-09705-1
39. Colom R, Garcı́a-López O. Sex differences in fluid intelligence among high school graduates. Personality and Individual differences. 2002; 32(3):445-451.

       https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00040-X

40. Raven J.C., Court JH. Raven's progressive matrices and vocabulary scales: Oxford pyschologists Press Oxford; 1998. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=
41. Cotton S.M., Kiely P.M., Crewther D.P., Thomson B, Laycock R, Crewther SG. A normative and reliability study for the Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices for primary school aged children from Victoria, Australia. Personality and individual differences. 2005; 39(3):647-659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.015
42. Tzuriel D. Dynamic assessment of young children. Dynamic assessment of young children: Springer. 2001: 63-75.

https://books.google.com/books?hl=fa&lr=&id=UOMqoEyV0BoC&oi=

43. Linn M.C., Petersen AC. Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child development. 1985:1479-1498. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130467
44. Voyer D, Voyer S, Bryden M.P. Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: a meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological bulletin. 1995;117(2):250. https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1995-20087-001
45. Halpern D.F. Sex differences in cognitive abilities: Psychology press; 2013. https://books.google.com/books?hl=fa&lr=&id=ocl5AgAAQBAJ&oi
46. Wood W, Eagly AH. Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. Advances in experimental social psychology. 46: Elsevier; 2012. p. 55-123.

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394281-4.00002-7

47. Waber D.P. Sex differences in cognition: A function of maturation rate? Science. 1976;192(4239): 572-4. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1257795