The reading sex difference favoring girls grew over the decade and was driven by very poor performance of boys at the low end¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 2 studies · 2 associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2013 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2018: baselines and conditions change

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The overall average reading sex difference increased from 32.0 points in 2000 to 38.8 points in 2009, t(32) = 26.25, p < .001. → Stoet G 2013 q3 i? In the 2009 PISA, the bottom 5% of boys in reading scored 50 points lower than the bottom 5% of girls, and the boys-to-girls ratio at the first percentile rose from 3.1:1 (2000) to 5.9:1 (2009). → Stoet G 2013 (2)

Evidence¶

Stoet G 2013¶

Stoet G, Geary DC (2013) Sex Differences in Mathematics and Reading Achievement Are Inversely Related: Within- and Across-Nation Assessment of 10 Years of PISA Data. PLoS ONE 8(3): e57988. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057988

q3 · i? · associational · r2

PISA secondary analysis across the 33 countries in all four assessments. The printed increase was from "32.0 points in 2000 to 38.8 points in 2009, t(32) = 26.25, p,.001"; only the t statistic is printed, so no effect size is coded.

"Not only was the sex difference in reading relatively large, the overall average difference increased from 32.0 points in 2000 to 38.8 points in 2009, t(32) = 26.25, p,.001."

Stoet G 2013 (2)¶

Stoet G, Geary DC (2013) Sex Differences in Mathematics and Reading Achievement Are Inversely Related: Within- and Across-Nation Assessment of 10 Years of PISA Data. PLoS ONE 8(3): e57988. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057988

q3 · i? · associational · r2

2009 PISA percentile analysis of reading. The article reports the "bottom 5% of boys in reading skills scored 50 points lower than the bottom 5% of girls", and that boys at the 13th percentile of the boys' distribution scored at the level of girls at the 5th percentile.

"In the 2009 PISA, the bottom 5% of boys in reading skills scored 50 points lower than the bottom 5% of girls."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

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

Related Claims¶

• National gender-equality and human-development indicators show no consistent correlation with sex differences in mathematics or reading across the decade — related
• Across nations, boys outperform girls in mathematics by a small average margin while girls outperform boys in reading by a margin three times larger — related
• The inverse relation between mathematics and reading sex differences also holds within nations across the performance continuum — related
• Girls scored lower than boys on fifth grade Numerical Operations, with the gap smaller in earlier grades, but no sex difference in fifth grade word reading — related
• Shanghai students took first place in all three major PISA 2009 categories, with Asian countries dominating the top rankings
• Gender disparities in CT education show a very small but statistically significant overall effect favoring males (g = 0.106) — related
• Boys are more likely than girls to rank at both the top and the bottom of the grade scale, supporting greater variability of excellence among boys — related