The two-factor STM/WM structure holds for both younger (8-10) and older (11-13) children¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2001 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses yielded the same two-factor solution in 8- to 10-year-olds and 11- to 13-year-olds, contradicting the hypothesis that the STM/WM distinction is blurred in children. → Robert Kail and Lynda K. Hall 2001

Evidence¶

Robert Kail and Lynda K. Hall 2001¶

Robert Kail and Lynda K. Hall. (2001). Distinguishing short-term memory from working memory. Memory & Cognition, 29(1), 1-9. https://link.springer.com/journal/13421/29/1

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Samples were split into 8- to 10-year-olds and 11- to 13-year-olds in both studies; two-factor solutions emerged in exploratory analyses, and one-factor models fit worse for both age groups (Study 1 c2s(1) = 6.16 and 4.74; Study 2 c2s(1) = 3.88 and 5.36, p < .05). The authors report "the memory tasks distinguishedSTM and WM constructs" across the age range.

"Thus, throughoutthe age range studied here, the memory tasks distinguishedSTM and WM constructs."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Kindergarten EF is best described by a two-factor model separating inhibition from WM–flexibility — related
• Working memory is distinct from short-term memory in subsystem count and functional role in higher cognition — a broader claim this one bears on
• Processing speed is linked to working memory in both studies, but its link to short-term memory is inconsistent across studies — related
• Cowan's three-factor embedded processes model fit young children's working memory data slightly better than Baddeley and Hitch's three-factor model and decisively better than Baddeley's four-factor episodic buffer model — related
• Same-construct memory task correlations exceed different-construct correlations — related