PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 2138794

Gender differences in mathematics performance: a meta-analysis.

Abstract

Reviewers have consistently concluded that males perform better on mathematics tests than females do. To make a refined assessment of the magnitude of gender differences in mathematics performance, we performed a meta-analysis of 100 studies. They yielded 254 independent effect sizes, representing the testing of 3,175,188 Ss. Averaged over all effect sizes based on samples of the general population, d was -0.05, indicating that females outperformed males by only a negligible amount. For computation, d was -0.14 (the negative value indicating superior performance by females). For understanding of mathematical concepts, d was -0.03; for complex problem solving, d was 0.08. An examination of age trends indicated that girls showed a slight superiority in computation in elementary school and middle school. There were no gender differences in problem solving in elementary or middle school; differences favoring men emerged in high school (d = 0.29) and in college (d = 0.32). Gender differences were smallest and actually favored females in samples of the general population, grew larger with increasingly selective samples, and were largest for highly selected samples and samples of highly precocious persons. The magnitude of the gender difference has declined over the years; for studies published in 1973 or earlier d was 0.31, whereas it was 0.14 for studies published in 1974 or later. We conclude that gender differences in mathematics performance are small. Nonetheless, the lower performance of women in problem solving that is evident in high school requires attention.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J S Hyde, E Fennema, S J Lamon. 1990. Gender differences in mathematics performance: a meta-analysis.. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.139

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Multiple regression analysis of twin data: a model-fitting approach.

The multiple regression methodology proposed by DeFries and Fulker (DF; 1985, 1988) for the analysis of twin data is compared with maximum-likelihood estimation of genetic and environmental parameters from covariance structure. Expectations for the regression coefficients from submodels omitting the h2 and c2 terms are derived. Model comparisons similar to those conducted using maximum-likelihood estimation procedures are illustrated using multiple regression. Submodels of the augmented DF model are shown to yield parameter estimates highly similar to those obtained from the traditional latent variable model. While maximum-likelihood estimation of covariance structure may be the optimal statistical method of estimating genetic and environmental parameters, the model-fitting approach we propose is a useful extension to the highly flexible and conceptually simple DF methodology.

Aptitude

Differential heritability across levels of cognitive ability.

Differences in heritability and shared environmentality across levels of cognitive ability were assessed in a sample of 264 twin pairs tested at 1 year of age and in subsets tested at 2 and 3 years. Using an extension of the DF multiple regression methodology for analyzing twin data, no evidence was found for a linear or quadratic effect of level of cognitive ability on estimates of heritability or shared environmentality.

Aptitude

Varieties of numerical abilities.

This paper provides a tutorial introduction to numerical cognition, with a review of essential findings and current points of debate. A tacit hypothesis in cognitive arithmetic is that numerical abilities derive from human linguistic competence. One aim of this special issue is to confront this hypothesis with current knowledge of number representations in animals, infants, normal and gifted adults, and brain-lesioned patients. First, the historical evolution of number notations is presented, together with the mental processes for calculating and transcoding from one notation to another. While these domains are well described by formal symbol-processing models, this paper argues that such is not the case for two other domains of numerical competence: quantification and approximation. The evidence for counting, subitizing and numerosity estimation in infants, children, adults and animals is critically examined. Data are also presented which suggest a specialization for processing approximate numerical quantities in animals and humans. A synthesis of these findings is proposed in the form of a triple-code model, which assumes that numbers are mentally manipulated in an arabic, verbal or analogical magnitude code depending on the requested mental operation. Only the analogical magnitude representation seems available to animals and preverbal infants.

Aptitude