8/17/2019 Results_SB_STT.docx

1/4

Results

Sample Characteristics

Thirty eight boys and their fathers and 38 girls and their mothers were recruited as research participants. The children were aged 8 years whereas the mean age of adults was 40.4211(9 !"#$32% 41&

Language Task

The mean score among children was 10.9 whereas that among adults was 18. 3. There was asignificant age effect in the language tas' ( (1% )2&*32.++ % p,0.0001%neta*0.312&% but nosignificant gender effect ( (1% )2&*0.2)8% p*0.+00% neta* 0.03 &. There was no -ge group /ender interaction ( (1% )2&* 0.1 % p*0.904% neta*0.0020 &. Thus performance in the languagetas' impro ed with age but there was no difference in performance between the males andfemales among both adults and children.

Between Errors

There was a significant age group effect ( (1% )2&*31.08)% p,0.0001% neta*0.302& but nosignificant gender effects ( (1% )2&*0.903% p*0.34 % neta*0.012& or gender age groupinteraction obser ed ( (1. )2&*0.024% p*0.8)8% neta*0.000328&. Thus performance in the

between errors component of the spatial wor'ing memory tas' the performance impro ed withage but there was no difference in the performance between males and females in both adults andchildren.

Within Errors

There was no significance across age groups (p*0.8)0& and gender (p*0.290& in the #ndependentsamples ann hitney Test.

8/17/2019 Results_SB_STT.docx

2/4

Double Errors

There was no significance across age groups (p*0. 14& and gender (p*0.3)8& in the #ndependentsamples ann hitney Test.

Total Errors

There was a significant age group effect ( (1%)2&*2+.10+% p,0.0001% neta*0.2++& but nosignificant gender effects ( (1% )2&*1.2)4% p*0.2+3% neta*0.1)& or gender age group interactionobser ed ( (1. )2&*0.188% p*0.++ % neta*0.003&. Thus performance in the total errors componentof the spatial wor'ing memory tas' the performance impro ed with age but there was nodifference in the performance between males and females in both adults and children.

Strategy

There was a significant age group effect ( (1% )2&*).43+% p*0.008% neta*0.094& but nosignificant gender effects ( (1% )2&*1.148% p*0.288% neta*0.01+& or gender age groupinteraction obser ed ( (1. )2&*0.000% p*1.0% neta*0.000&. Thus performance in the betweenerrors component of the spatial wor'ing memory tas' the performance impro ed with age butthere was no difference in the performance between males and females in both adults andchildren.

Years of E ucation

nce corrected for the 5ears of 6ducation among adults% there was a significant correlation between the 5ears of 6ducation and the performance on most tas' parameters such as the wordsrecalled in the language tas' (p*0.003&% strategy (p*0.00 &% between errors (p*0.004&% and totalerrors (p*0.00+& according to the 7earson s correlation. Thus it is a significant confounder thatmay affects the outcome of the abo e tests. #n nearly all tas' parameters% the years of educationcorrelate strongly with tas' performance in females than males. Thus language and spatialwor'ing memory performance in females ( 2* 0.3+1& are largely contributed by training andinter ention than the intrinsic ability they bring from birth whereas the re erse is true amongmales ( 2* 0.12)&.

8/17/2019 Results_SB_STT.docx

3/4

!"erage Test Scores

nce corrected for the - erage test scores among children there was no significant effect on the performance on most tas' parameters.

Degree of Difficulty

-s the tas' difficulty increased in each of the parameters in the :patial wor'ing memory tas' there was significant reduction in the performance le el. - repeated measures -; etween 6rrors ( (1.+92% 12+.8))%&*421.4+4% p*0.0000% &.

8/17/2019 Results_SB_STT.docx

4/4