Fluid reasoning and self-control jointly explain far more variance in standardized test scores than in grades¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The full regression model explained 29% of mathematics and 37% of physics test variance but only 12% of mGPA variance. → Schmidt FTC 2020

Evidence¶

Schmidt FTC 2020¶

Schmidt FTC, Lindner C, Etzel JM and Retelsdorf J (2020) Self-Control Outdoes Fluid Reasoning in Explaining Vocational and Academic Performance—But Does It? Front. Psychol. 11:757. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00757

q3 · i? · associational · r3

Multivariate regression on N = 3,146 trainees; the printed R² values were 0.29 (math), 0.37 (physics), and 0.12 (mGPA), and "the constructs explained substantially more variance of the achievement tests" than of grades.

"Combined, the constructs explained substantially more variance of the achievement tests (math, 29%; physics, 37%) than they did for mGPA (12%)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Fluid reasoning, not trait self-control, predicts low-stakes standardized mathematics and physics test scores — related
• Trait self-control is significantly associated with major GPA beyond fluid reasoning and conscientiousness in vocational trainees — related
• Trait self-control correlates with grades but not with standardized test scores at the bivariate level — related
• Motivational constructs explain more variance in school grades than in standardized test scores — reports the opposite