Male and female networks differ in structure and overall connectivity, with tighter internal connections in the male sample¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Network structure invariance differed significantly (M = 0.34, P<0.001) and overall expected influence differed (S = 0.77, P<0.05), both favouring tighter connections in males. → Ma 2023 q2 i? Edge weight invariance tests identified significant differences in the A4–D1, D1–D2, and D2–D3 edges (Ps < 0.05), while bridge centrality invariance showed no significant differences. → Ma 2023 (2)

Evidence¶

Ma 2023¶

Ma, C., Song, M., & Zhao, X. (2023). The impact of executive functions on English academic performance among Chinese primary school students: A network analysis. https://www.nwnu.edu.cn

q2 · i? · associational · r2

NetworkComparisonTest permutation analyses compared male (n=436) and female (n=427) networks. The structure test showed "tighterinternalconnectionsinthemalesample"; the expected influence test (S = 0.77, P<0.05) indicated stronger executive function–English connections in males.

"The network structure invariance test revealed significant differences (M = 0.34, P<0.001),indicatingtighterinternalconnectionsinthemalesample."

Ma 2023 (2)¶

Ma, C., Song, M., & Zhao, X. (2023). The impact of executive functions on English academic performance among Chinese primary school students: A network analysis. https://www.nwnu.edu.cn

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Local invariance tests with Holm-Bonferroni correction found three differing edges, all tighter in males; centrality invariance differed for A1 and D2 nodes, but "bridge centrality invariance test showed no significant differences (Ps > 0.05)".

"The edge weight invariance test identified significant differences in three edges:A4–D1, D1–D2, and D2–D3 (Ps < 0.05), indicating tighter connections in the male sample between working memory span and listening, listening and reading, and readingandwriting."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Gender — predictor: outcomes differ by group: a gap reflecting circumstances and treatment, not a cause

Related Claims¶

• Working memory span, updating, and cognitive flexibility positively predict English writing, response inhibition positively predicts reading, and working memory span negatively predicts listening — related
• Gender-specific prediction patterns: working memory span negatively predicts listening more strongly in males, while its positive bridging influence on English performance is stronger in females — related
• Intrinsically motivated students form reflective-iterative metacognitive co-occurrence networks, but overall ENA centroid positions do not differ significantly between motivational groups — related
• The effects of thoughtless GenAI use on motivation, self-efficacy, and self-directed learning differ significantly by gender — related