In the past Jelte M. Wicherts has collaborated on articles with Paulette C. Flore and Dylan Molenaar. One of their most recent publications is Does stereotype threat influence performance of girls in stereotyped domains? A meta-analysis☆. Which was published in journal Journal of School Psychology.

More information about Jelte M. Wicherts research including statistics on their citations can be found on their Copernicus Academic profile page.

Jelte M. Wicherts's Articles: (4)

Does stereotype threat influence performance of girls in stereotyped domains? A meta-analysis☆

AbstractAlthough the effect of stereotype threat concerning women and mathematics has been subject to various systematic reviews, none of them have been performed on the sub-population of children and adolescents. In this meta-analysis we estimated the effects of stereotype threat on performance of girls on math, science and spatial skills (MSSS) tests. Moreover, we studied publication bias and four moderators: test difficulty, presence of boys, gender equality within countries, and the type of control group that was used in the studies. We selected study samples when the study included girls, samples had a mean age below 18 years, the design was (quasi-)experimental, the stereotype threat manipulation was administered between-subjects, and the dependent variable was a MSSS test related to a gender stereotype favoring boys. To analyze the 47 effect sizes, we used random effects and mixed effects models. The estimated mean effect size equaled − 0.22 and significantly differed from 0. None of the moderator variables was significant; however, there were several signs for the presence of publication bias. We conclude that publication bias might seriously distort the literature on the effects of stereotype threat among schoolgirls. We propose a large replication study to provide a less biased effect size estimate.

The power to detect sex differences in IQ test scores using Multi-Group Covariance and Means Structure Analyses☆

AbstractResearch into sex differences in general intelligence, g, has resulted in two opposite views. In the first view, a g-difference is nonexistent, while in the second view, g is associated with a male advantage. Past research using Multi-Group Covariance and Mean Structure Analysis (MG-CMSA) found no sex difference in g. This failure raised the question whether the g-difference is truly absent or whether MG-CMSA lacked statistical power to detect it. The present study used the likelihood ratio test to investigate the power to detect a g-difference in the WAIS-III factor structure with MG-CMSA. Various situations were examined including those reported in the literature. Results showed that power varies greatly among different scenarios. The scenarios based on previous results were associated with power coefficients of about 0.5–0.6. Implications of these findings are discussed in the light of research into sex differences in IQ.

The dangers of unsystematic selection methods and the representativeness of 46 samples of African test-takers

AbstractIn this rejoinder, we criticize Lynn and Meisenberg's (this issue) methods to estimate the average IQ (in terms of British norms after correction of the Flynn Effect) of the Black population of sub-Saharan Africa. We argue that their review of the literature is unsystematic, as it involves the inconsistent use of rules to determine the representativeness and hence selection of samples. Employing independent raters, we determined of each sample whether it was (1) considered representative by the original authors, (2) drawn randomly, (3) based on an explicated stratification scheme, (4) composed of healthy test-takers, and (5) considered by the original authors as normal in terms of Socio-Economic Status (SES). We show that the use of these alternative inclusion criteria would not have affected our results. We found that Lynn and Meisenberg's assessment of the samples' representativeness is not associated with any of the objective sampling characteristics, but rather with the average IQ in the sample. This suggests that Lynn and Meisenberg excluded samples of Africans who average IQs above 75 because they deemed these samples unrepresentative on the basis of the samples' relatively high IQs. We conclude that Lynn and Meisenberg's unsystematic methods are questionable and their results untrustworthy.

The relation between specialty choice of psychology students and their interests, personality, and cognitive abilities

AbstractThe aim of this longitudinal study was to investigate differences in interests, personality, and cognitive abilities between students majoring in the six specialties of psychology at the University of Amsterdam. Results show that students at Social Psychology and Work and Organizational Psychology were on average more extraverted than students of other specializations, that students of Psychological Methods and Psychonomics were relatively more open to experience, and that students at Clinical Psychology were on average more neurotic. Differences in cognitive ability were small, but significant, with the highest scores among students of the more research-oriented specialties. With discriminant analyses on the basis of nine interest scales, 53% of the students were correctly categorized in the specialization chosen two or years after interests were measured. Interest profiles of the specialties follow differences in interest in helping people, abstract vs. concrete topics, and technical issues. Person-specialization congruence failed to predict academic performance.

Join Copernicus Academic and get access to over 12 million papers authored by 7+ million academics.
Join for free!

Contact us