Results

Sample Characteristics
Thirty eight boys and their fathers and 38 girls and their mothers were recruited as research
participants. The children were aged 8 years whereas the mean age of adults was 40.4211(95%
CI-32, 41)
Language Task
The mean score among children was 10.95 whereas that among adults was 18.53. There was a
significant age effect in the language task (F(1, 72)=32.665, p<0.0001,neta=0.312), but no
significant gender effect (F(1, 72)=0.278, p=0.600, neta= 0.035). There was no Age group x
Gender interaction (F(1, 72)= 0.15, p=0.904, neta=0.00205). Thus performance in the language
task improved with age but there was no difference in performance between the males and
females among both adults and children.

Between Errors
There was a significant age group effect (F(1, 72)=31.087, p<0.0001, neta=0.302) but no
significant gender effects (F(1, 72)=0.903, p=0.345, neta=0.012) or gender x age group
interaction observed (F(1. 72)=0.024, p=0.878, neta=0.000328). Thus performance in the
between errors component of the spatial working memory task the performance improved with
age but there was no difference in the performance between males and females in both adults and
children.
Within Errors
There was no significance across age groups (p=0.870) and gender (p=0.290) in the Independent
samples Mann Whitney U Test.

Double Errors
There was no significance across age groups (p=0.514) and gender (p=0.378) in the Independent
samples Mann Whitney U Test.
Total Errors
There was a significant age group effect (F(1,72)=26.106, p<0.0001, neta=0.266) but no
significant gender effects (F(1, 72)=1.274, p=0.263, neta=0.17) or gender x age group interaction
observed (F(1. 72)=0.188, p=0.665, neta=0.003). Thus performance in the total errors component
of the spatial working memory task the performance improved with age but there was no
difference in the performance between males and females in both adults and children.
Strategy
There was a significant age group effect (F(1, 72)=7.436, p=0.008, neta=0.094) but no
significant gender effects (F(1, 72)=1.148, p=0.288, neta=0.016) or gender x age group
interaction observed (F(1. 72)=0.000, p=1.0, neta=0.000). Thus performance in the between
errors component of the spatial working memory task the performance improved with age but
there was no difference in the performance between males and females in both adults and
children.
Years of Education
Once corrected for the Years of Education among adults, there was a significant correlation
between the Years of Education and the performance on most task parameters such as the words
recalled in the language task (p=0.003), strategy (p=0.005), between errors (p=0.004), and total
errors (p=0.006) according to the Pearsons correlation. Thus it is a significant confounder that
may affects the outcome of the above tests. In nearly all task parameters, the years of education
correlate strongly with task performance in females than males. Thus language and spatial
working memory performance in females (R2= 0.361) are largely contributed by training and
intervention than the intrinsic ability they bring from birth whereas the reverse is true among
males (R2= 0.127).

Average Test Scores

Once corrected for the Average test scores among children there was no significant effect on the
performance on most task parameters.
Degree of Difficulty
As the task difficulty increased in each of the parameters in the Spatial working memory task
there was significant reduction in the performance level. A repeated measures ANOVA with a
Greenhouse-Geisser correction determined that the level of performance differed statistically
significantly between the various grades of difficulty in the outcome variables Total Errors
(F(1.685, 126.350)=356.273, p=0.00000, neta=0.826), Within Errors, Double Errors and
Between Errors (F(1.692, 126.877,)=421.464, p=0.0000, ).