Learning and Individual Differences 20 (2010) 14–18

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l i n d i f

Do intelligence and sustained attention interact in predicting

academic achievement?
Ricarda Steinmayr a,⁎, Mattias Ziegler b, Birgit Träuble a
a
University of Heidelberg, Department of Psychology, Hauptstraβe 47-51, D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany
b
Humboldt-University Berlin, Department of Psychology, Rudower Chaussee 18, D-12489 Berlin, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Research in clinical samples suggests that the relationship between intelligence and academic achievement might
Received 10 January 2009 be moderated by sustained attention. The present study aimed to explore whether this interaction could be
Received in revised form 15 September 2009 observed in a non-clinical sample. We investigated a sample of 11th and 12th grade students (N = 231). An
Accepted 15 October 2009
overall performance score and a quality of performance score in sustained attention as well as verbal, numerical,
and general intelligence scores served as predictors. Achievement criteria were grades in math and German as
Keywords:
well as Grade Point Average (GPA) obtained after testing. Both types of sustained attention scores were
Sustained attention
Intelligence
significantly related to school performance, but only the quality of performance score incrementally contributed
Academic achievement to the prediction of school performance above and beyond intelligence. Overall differences in the sustained
Incremental validity attention test significantly moderated the relationship between verbal intelligence and German grades. Quality of
Moderation performance moderated the relationship between general intelligence and GPA as well as the one between
numerical intelligence and math grades. The study elucidates the interplay between sustained attention,
intelligence, and school performance in a non-clinical sample.
© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Research on the predictive validity of attention has provided

It is a widely acknowledged fact that general intelligence is one of the
best predictors of school performance (r about .5; e.g., Kuncel, Hezlett, &
Ones, 2004). A more basal and less complex cognitive ability is attention,
which has been investigated in the school context (e.g., Barriga et al.,
2002). Correlations between attention and school performance are not
as strong as those found for general intelligence (Duncan et al., 2007).
Though attention and general intelligence are related (e.g., Buehner,
Krumm, Ziegler, & Pluecken, 2006; Gordon, Thomason, & Cooper, 1990),
they might explain different amounts of variance in school performance.
Only a few studies have investigated whether attention predicts school
performance above and beyond general intelligence in clinical or non-
clinical samples (Mayes & Calhoun, 2007a,b; Tramontana, Hooper,
Curley, & Nardolillo, 1990). None of these studies explicitly considered
an interaction effect of the two predictors on school performance.
Referring to Barkley's (1988) plea for additionally considering attention
when interpreting performance on achievement measures, Gordon et al.
(1990, p. 144) already pointed out that the interplay between potential
and performance is largely dependent on the child's attention, and thus
on his/her ability to fully engage in the task. The present study aims to
investigate the interplay between attention and general intelligence in
predicting school performance.
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 6221 547728; fax: +49 6221 547326.
E-mail addresses: ricarda.steinmayr@psychologie.uni-heidelberg.de (R. Steinmayr),
matthias.ziegler@psychologie.hu-berlin.de (M. Ziegler).
mixed results. Colom, Escorial, Shih, and Privado (2007) reported only
very low and nonsignificant correlations (r b .20) between measures
of attention and school performance. Another study (Luo, Thompson,
& Detterman, 2006), however, showed that basic cognitive tasks such
as attention are as good predictors of school performance as fluid
intelligence. A recent study by Rohde and Thompson (2007) revealed
processing speed, a construct closely related to attention, to be an
incremental predictor of general intelligence when predicting the
mathematical subtest of the SAT. This short summary suggests
incremental validity for attention above general intelligence.
The idea of a possible interaction between attention and general
intelligence is supported by studies investigating children with attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Here, general intelligence is a less
effective predictor than in samples of non-clinical students. In a study of
children with psychiatric disorders, neuropsychological factors such as
attention were more important than intelligence and demographic
variables in predicting achievement (Tramontana et al., 1990). In a
recent study by Mayes and Calhoun (2007b), the Freedom from
Distractibility/Working Memory and Processing Speed subtests of the
WISC-III and WISC-IV as measures of attention were the most powerful
predictors of presence or absence of a learning disability in children with
ADHD. Furthermore, in a sample consisting of children diagnosed with
ADHD, other neuropsychological disorders and a normal control group,
Mayes and Calhoun (2007a) demonstrated that children with either
dysgraphia or impaired attention performed below expectancy in all
investigated academic areas (reading, math, and written expression)

1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.009
 R. Steinmayr et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 20 (2010) 14–18
when predicted by general intelligence. Although the results give reason
to believe that there might have been an interaction between attention
and intelligence in the prediction of school performance, the authors did
not explicitly test for an interaction effect. Furthermore, the results are
based on a non-representative sample consisting mainly of students who
show clinically relevant behavior.
The present study investigated a possible interaction between
attention and general intelligence in the prediction of school perfor-
mance in a sample of non-clinical students. Research on attention often
struggles with the many different existing definitions and concepts. In
this study we focused on one aspect of attention: sustained attention.
Sustained attention is defined as the ability to maintain attention on a
specific stimulus to a high degree (concentration) over a long time
period (Coull, 1998). Schweizer and Moosbrugger (2004) explained its
functionality by stating that a high level of sustained attention provides
necessary resources for all steps of a complex processing plan (see also
Carpenter, Just, & Shell, 1990). According to this definition sustained
attention should be especially relevant in the school context because
complex problem solving is an important prerequisite for school
performance (Organisation of Economic Co-Operation and Develop-
ment [OECD], 2003). Thus, the likelihood of finding possible additive or
interactional effects should be especially high when investigating
sustained attention.
Hypothesis 1. Sustained attention provides incremental validity be-
yond intelligence when predicting school performance.
Hypothesis 2. The relationship between intelligence and school perfor-
mance is moderated by sustained attention.
2. Method
2.1. Sample and procedure
In the present study, 231 11th and 12th grade students participated.
The sample is part of a larger ongoing study on determinants of school
performance (Schwinger, Steinmayr, & Spinath, 2009; Steinmayr &
Spinath, 2007, 2008, 2009). Students attended a type of school that
prepares them for university (“Gymnasium”). The mean age was
M = 16.82 years (SD = .75); 139 were female. Tests were given during a
regular school day in fall 2006. Testing was optional. To increase
motivation to participate in the study and to encourage students to take
the testing seriously, we offered detailed feedback. Before testing we
received written consent forms from all parents of the under-aged
students. About 20 students per group were tested by trained research
assistants and psychology university students. To prevent copying,
parallel forms of all measures were given to the students.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Intelligence
Intelligence was assessed by means of the basic module of the
Intelligence-Structure-Test 2000-R (Intelligenz-Struktur-Test 2000-R,
IST; Amthauer, Brocke, Liepmann, & Beauducel, 2001). This test is a well
validated and frequently used intelligence test in Germany that can be
administered as either an individual or a group test. The basic module of
the test assesses verbal, numerical, and figural intelligence as well as a
composite of these three intelligence facets interpreted as reasoning.
Because reasoning is very closely related to general intelligence (Horn,
1988), in the present study it is used as a proxy for general intelligence.
Testing lasted up to 95 min.
2.2.2. Sustained attention
The concentration-achievement-test-R (Konzentrations-Leistungs-
Test-R, KLT-R; Düker, Lienert, Lukesch, & Mayrhofer, 2001) objectively
measures sustained attention and concentration. Different from tests
15
like the d2 (Brickenkamp & Zillmer, 1998), it tests long-term in contrast
to short-term attention. The short version of the test consists of 180 easy
arithmetical problems presented in nine blocks. Each problem presents
two sums (e.g., 7 + 5 and 6 + 3, or 3 + 6 and 4 + 8), which should be
solved according to the following rule: If the sum of the first equation is
larger than the sum of the second equation, the latter sum should be
subtracted from the first sum. If the sum of the first equation is smaller
than the sum of the second equation, both results should be summed
together. Results are jotted down on an answer sheet. Participants are
advised to correctly solve as many problems of one block as possible in a
given time period. After 2 min, test leaders advise participants to start
with the next block. Total testing time is about 20 min.
The number of correctly solved problems indicates an overall
sustained attention score, which is labelled as “sustained attention
(quantity)” in the following. The percentage of incorrectly solved
problems in relation to all the problems attempted is a score that
represents the quality of performance in the sustained attention tasks,
which will be referred to as “sustained attention (quality)” in the
following. The higher the error percentage score, the poorer was the
performance in sustained attention (quality). According to Düker and
Lienert (1965, p. 4), sustained attention (quantity) scores represent
the impetus of a person when solving concentration tasks, whereas
the sustained attention (quality) score stands for a person's control
functions. Thus, the two scores measure different aspects of sustained
attention.
2.2.3. School achievement
The school delivered report cards for all students for the term after
testing. The time interval between testing and delivery was about five
months. In Germany, grades are coded such that “1” indicates
outstanding achievement and “6” indicates complete failure. Grades
were reversed to facilitate interpretation of the results and afterwards z-
standardized. Overall school performance was indicated by the Grade
Point Average (GPA) of each student. GPA, math, and German grades
served as criteria.
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive statistics and criterion validity
Descriptive statistics as well as intercorrelations of all measures
are presented in Table 1.
Means, standard deviations, and internal consistencies of most
measures were comparable to the coefficients found in the respective
manuals (Amthauer et al., 2001; Düker et al., 2001). General, verbal,
and numerical intelligence correlated positively and moderately with
GPA and math grades. Verbal intelligence and German grades were
only weakly positively associated. Sustained attention (quantity) was
weakly positively correlated with performance in math and GPA but
Table 1
Means (M), standard deviations (SD), internal consistencies (α), and intercorrelations
of grades, sustained attention measures and intelligence.
Decriptives Intercorrelations
M SD α 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8)
Grades
1) GPA 3.09 .69 .84 .77 .64 .30 .27 .28 .22 − .25
2) Math 3.20 1.17 .31 .36 .35 .20 .29 − .27
3) German 3.02 .82 .09 .03 .20 .07 − .13
Intelligence
4) General intelligence 109.03 18.48 .90 .83 .65 .61 − .38
5) Numerical 40.07 10.06 .91 .33 .73 − .48
6) Verbal 34.94 6.25 .72 .21 − .13
Sustained attention
7) Correctly solved items 67.61 27.99 .96 − .56
8) Error percentage 17.42 12.06 .83
Note. N = 220–231; r ≥ .13, p ≤ .05; r ≥ .18, p ≤ .01.
16 R. Steinmayr et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 20 (2010) 14–18

Table 2
Hierarchical multiple regressions of domain-specific grades and GPA on centered corresponding intelligence measures, sustained attention (quantity), and the interaction term of
the two centered predictors.

(N = 220) GPA Math German

Beta T p R2 ΔR2 Beta T p R2 ΔR2 Beta T p R2 ΔR2

Model 1 .09 .09 .13 .13 .04 .04

Intelligence .30 4.70 b .01 .36 5.60 b.01 .20 3.04 b .01
Model 2 .09 b .01 .13 b .01 .04 b.01
Intelligence .27 3.29 b .01 .30 3.25 b.01 .20 2.87 b .01
Sustained attention (quantity) .06 .78 .44 .08 .87 .38 .03 .42 .67
Model 3 .09 b .01 .13 b .01 .06 .02
Intelligence (I) .28 3.40 b .01 .30 3.17 b.01 .20 2.98 b .01
Sustained attention (quantity) (QA) .04 .45 .65 .07 .76 .45 .01 .18 .85
Interaction I × QA .08 1.27 .21 .01 .17 .87 .13 1.98 .05

Note. We used the corresponding intelligence measure for the prediction of the different performance criteria (GPA: general intelligence, Math: numerical intelligence, German:
verbal intelligence).

not with performance in German. Sustained attention (quality) was
weakly correlated with performance in all domains.
3.2. Incremental analyses
According to Hypothesis 1, sustained attention should provide
incremental validity beyond general intelligence. We performed
hierarchical multiple regression analyses. First, the different criteria
for school performance were regressed on the corresponding intelli-
gence measures. Second, the different sustained attention measures
were included in the analyses as additional predictors. Results are
presented in Tables 2 and 3.
Sustained attention (quantity) did not incrementally contribute to
the prediction of any school performance criterion. Sustained
attention (quality) added significantly in explaining GPA, but added
only marginally in predicting math and German performance. Thus,
these results are only partly in line with the predictions made in
Hypothesis 1.
3.3. Moderator analyses
In Hypothesis 2, we assumed that the relationship between
intelligence and school performance is moderated by sustained
attention. Before performing interaction analyses, all predictors
were centered (cf. Aiken & West, 1991). Interaction analyses were
computed by including the interaction term (calculated as the product
of the centered predictors) as a third predictor in the hierarchical
regression analyses described above. The results of the interaction
analyses are shown in Tables 2 and 3.
Sustained attention (quantity) did not moderate the association
between general intelligence and (a) GPA, (b) numeric intelligence,
or (c) math performance. However, the correlation between verbal
intelligence and German grade was significantly moderated by
sustained attention (quantity). In accordance with the guidelines by
Cohen and Cohen (1983), we chose the mean of sustained attention
(quantity), one standard deviation above the mean, and one standard
deviation below the mean to compute simple regression equations of
grades in German on verbal intelligence. Simple slope analyses showed
that there was a significant effect of verbal intelligence on German
grades at the high (t = 3.47, p = .011) and at the mean sustained at-
tention (quantity) values (t = 3.01, p = .013), but not at the low value
(t = .77, p = .440). Thus, only for students scoring in the medium or
above average range of sustained attention (quantity) was verbal
intelligence positively related to performance in German. This is illus-
trated in Fig. 1.
We further checked whether the association between intelligence
and school performance was moderated by sustained attention (quality).
The analysis procedure was the same as before. Sustained attention
(quality) significantly moderated the relationship between the specific
intelligence measure and performance in math and GPA, but not for
grades in German. Figs. 2 and 3 illustrate the interaction effect of sus-
tained attention (quality) and the corresponding intelligence measure for
math performance and GPA. Again, we followed the guidelines by Cohen
and Cohen (1983) in order to compute different slopes at different values
of sustained attention (quality).
Figs. 2 and 3 illustrate that for math grades and GPA, intelligence
and school performance are more strongly related for students with
higher levels of sustained attention (quality) (which was negatively
coded). Simple slope analysis confirmed this impression. At low levels
of sustained attention (quality) (indicated by the line “+ 1 Std Dev”)
numerical intelligence and math grades were not related (t = .73,
p = .47). The same was true for general intelligence and GPA (t = .56,
p = .58). At higher levels of sustained attention (quality) (indicated
by the lines “Mean” and “−1 Std Dev,” respectively) the regression

Table 3
Hierarchical multiple regressions of domain-specific grades and GPA on centered corresponding intelligence measures, sustained attention (quality) (indicated by percentage of
errors and thus reversed coded), and the interaction term of the two centered predictors.

(N = 220) GPA Math German

2 2 2 2
Beta T p R ΔR Beta T p R ΔR Beta T p R2 ΔR2

Model 1 .09 .09 .13 .13 .04 .04

Intelligence .30 4.70 b .01 .36 5.60 b.01 .20 3.04 b .01
Model 2 .11 .02 .14 .01 .05 .01
Intelligence .25 3.54 b .01 .30 4.14 b.01 .19 2.82 .01
Sustained attention (quality) − .15 − 2.21 .03 − .13 − 1.78 .08 − .11 − .160 .11
Model 3 .13 .02 .16 .02 .06 .01
Intelligence (I) .20 2.87 b .01 .26 3.58 b.01 .19 2.80 .01
Sustained attention (quality) (QA) − .24 − 3.09 b .01 − .24 − 2.79 .01 − .12 − 1.73 .09
Interaction I × QA − .17 − 2.34 .02 − .18 − 2.41 .02 − .09 − 1.23 .20

Note. We used the corresponding intelligence measure for the prediction of the different performance criteria (GPA: general intelligence, Math: numerical intelligence, German:
verbal intelligence).
 R. Steinmayr et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 20 (2010) 14–18
Fig. 1. Regression of German grade on verbal intelligence at high, mean, and low values
of sustained attention (quantity).
of math grades on numerical intelligence was significant (t = 3.69,
p b .01, and t = 4.97, p b .01, respectively). The same pattern was found
for the regression of GPA on general intelligence (t = 3.52, p b .01, and
t = 4.41, p b .01, respectively). Thus, only students scoring averagely
or above average on sustained attention (quality) can channel their
intelligence into better performance in math and GPA. In sum,
Hypothesis 2 was corroborated for certain domains only.
4. Discussion
The present paper aimed to explore the interplay between sus-
tained attention and intelligence in the prediction of academic
achievement. Both types of sustained attention scores were related
to the different school performance criteria. Sustained attention
(quality) but not sustained attention (quantity) added to the
prediction of school achievement when controlling for intelligence.
Furthermore, sustained attention (quantity) moderated the relation-
ship between verbal intelligence and performance in German,
whereas sustained attention (quality) moderated the association
between numerical intelligence and math performance, as well as the
one between reasoning and GPA.
Fig. 2. Regression of GPA on reasoning at high, mean, and low values of sustained
attention (quality).
17
Fig. 3. Regression of Math grade on numerical intelligence at high, mean, and low values
of sustained attention (quality).
4.1. Criterion validities
In line with prior research, specific intelligence measures as well as
sustained attention were significantly related to school performance.
However, only verbal intelligence was correlated with German grades,
and sustained attention (quantity) was associated only with GPA and
math. Both results might be explained, on the one hand, by restriction in
range in our sample: We investigated students enrolled in a Gymna-
sium. This type of school represents the most demanding school track in
Germany; therefore, students were preselected by ability. This seems to
be especially true for verbal intelligence as its distribution in the present
sample was smaller in comparison to the other scales. Furthermore, the
standard deviation of German grades was smaller in comparison to
Math grades. The standard deviation of GPA was even smaller, but in
compensation, GPA reliabilities exceeded those of German grades (cf.
Steinmayr & Spinath, 2009). Thus, the restriction in range of the verbal
intelligence scale and the lower reliability of German grades might have
attenuated the association between verbal intelligence and German
grades and between German grades and sustained attention (quantity).
4.2. Incremental validities
The incremental validity hypothesis was corroborated only for
sustained attention (quality) but not for sustained attention (quan-
tity). A possible explanation might be the correlational pattern of the
sustained attention and intelligence variables. General and numerical
intelligence were highly correlated with sustained attention (quan-
tity) but showed only a medium association with sustained attention
(quality). These results are in line with the correlational pattern found
in other studies for different aspects of working memory (which,
according to Buehner et al. (2006), are closely related to different
measures of sustained attention) and intelligence (Buehner et al.,
2006; Oberauer, Süβ, Wilhelm, & Wittmann, 2008). Thus, due to the
high intercorrelations of sustained attention (quantity) and the
different intelligence variables, the chances for finding an incremental
validity for sustained attention (quantity) were small. The latter was
especially true for numerical and general intelligence because, due to
the numerical content of the sustained attention test, these measures
probably share more content-specific variance than the verbal
intelligence and the sustained attention tests. Sustained attention
(quality) was an incremental predictor of GPA, although it has to be
noted that the increment was small. As sustained attention (quality)
was less strongly related to the intelligence measures, the results
18 R. Steinmayr et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 20 (2010) 14–18
indicate a stronger divergence in functionality than was found for
sustained attention (quantity).
4.3. Moderating effects
Though sustained attention (quantity) did not incrementally contrib-
ute to the prediction of school performance, it significantly moderated
the relationship between verbal intelligence and German grades. As the
effect just reached significance, we feel that further research replicating
this effect is needed before trying to interpret this finding.
Concerning the prediction of math grades and GPA, sustained
attention (quality) moderated the relationship of the two criteria with
the corresponding intelligence measures at a higher significance level
than the one described above. A possible explanation might be that high
performance in math, but also in other school subjects, requires students
not only to understand the material that was taught, but also to
demonstrate their competence without slips of the pen or oversights. For
example, it is not enough to understand and be able to apply the rules of
integral calculus, but one must also be able to perform easy calculations
without mistakes on a math test that tests these abilities. Intelligent
students scoring below average on sustained attention (quality) are
prevented from performing at their potential by an inability to exert
control over the execution of tasks (cf. Schweizer & Moosbrugger, 2004).
The interaction term for sustained attention (quality) and verbal
intelligence did not reach significance for the prediction of German
grades. It might be that sustained attention, which is a more basal
ability, is not important for performance in German, which requires
rather complex competencies such as the correct understanding and
interpretation of given texts and the ability to accurately describe
one's thoughts in an essay. Thus, the effects of sustained attention on
school performance might rather be domain-specific.
4.4. Practical implications and conclusion
The present results stress the importance of investigating academic
achievement from a multivariate perspective incorporating different
cognitive measures and the need to take a domain-specific research
perspective. As the sample was recruited from the higher end of the
ability and academic performance distribution (students attended a
Gymnasium) the effects that were found might be larger in a more
heterogeneous sample. Students of the same intelligence differ even
more in school performance when investigated before they are selected
into different school types (cf. Weinert & Schneider, 1999). One reason
for their underachievement might be below-average sustained attention.
Further studies should concentrate on a more heterogeneous sample to
investigate the joint effect of sustained attention and intelligence on
school performance. Furthermore, the present study provides the first
indication that students might benefit from training their attentional
abilities. Different strategies to improve sustained attention, such as self-
monitoring, that have already been found to help children with ADHD
improve their academic achievement (for an overview cf. Purdie, Hattie,
& Carroll, 2002), might also help children with below average but not
clinically relevant scores in sustained attention.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Amthauer, R., Brocke, B., Liepmann, D., & Beauducel, A. (2001). Intelligenz-Struktur-Test
2000 R. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Barkley, R. A. (1988). Attention. In M. Tramantona (Ed.), Assessment issues in clinical
neuropsychology (pp. 1−66). New York: Plenum.
Barriga, A. Q., Doran, J. W., Newell, S. R., Morrison, E. M., Barbetti, V., & Robbins, B. D.
(2002). Relationships between problem behaviors and academic achievement in
adolescents: The unique role of attention problems. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 10, 233−240.
Brickenkamp, R., & Zillmer, E. (1998). d2—Test of attention. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Buehner, M., Krumm, S., Ziegler, M., & Pluecken, T. (2006). Cognitive abilities and their
interplay: Reasoning, crystallized intelligence, working memory components, and
sustained attention. Journal of Individual Differences, 27, 57−72.
Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A
theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices Test. Psy-
chological Review, 97, 404−431.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analyses for the
behavioral scienes (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Colom, R., Escorial, S., Shih, P. C., & Privado, J. (2007). Fluid intelligence, memory span,
and temperament difficulties predict academic performance of young adolescents.
Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1503.
Coull, J. T. (1998). Neural correlates of attention and arousal: Insights from
electrophysiology, functional neuroimaging and psychopharmacology. Progress in
Neurobiology, 55, 343−361.
Düker, H., & Lienert, G. A. (1965). Konzentrations-Leistungs-Test. K-L-T. Handanweisung.
Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Düker, H., Lienert, G. A., Lukesch, H., & Mayrhofer, S. (2001). Konzentrations-Leistungs-
Test—Revidierte Fassung (KLT-R). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., et al.
(2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43,
1428−1446.
Gordon, M., Thomason, D., & Cooper, S. (1990). To what extent does attention affect
K-ABC scores? Psychology in the Schools, 27, 144−147.
Horn, J. (1988). Thinking about human abilities. In J. R. Nesselroade & R. B. Cattell (Eds.),
Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (2nd., pp. 645–685). New York:
Plenum.
Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2004). Academic performance, career
potential, creativity, and job performance: Can one construct predict them all?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 148−161.
Luo, D., Thompson, L. A., & Detterman, D. K. (2006). The criterion validity of tasks of
basic cognitive processes. Intelligence, 34, 79−120.
Mayes, S. D., & Calhoun, S. L. (2007a). Learning, attention, writing, and processing speed
in typical children and children with ADHD, autism, anxiety, depression, and
oppositional-defiant disorder. Child Neuropsychology, 13, 469−493.
Mayes, S. D., & Calhoun, S. L. (2007b). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Third
and -Fourth Edition predictors of academic achievement in children with
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 234−249.
Oberauer, K., Süβ, H. -M., Wilhelm, O., & Wittmann, W. W. (2008). Which working
memory functions predict intelligence? Intelligence, 36, 641−652.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2003). The PISA
2003 assessment framework. Paris (France): OECD Publications.
Purdie, N., Hattie, J., & Carroll, A. (2002). A review of the research on interventions for
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: What works best? Review of Educational
Research, 72, 61−99.
Rohde, T. E., & Thompson, L. A. (2007). Predicting academic achievement with cognitive
ability. Intelligence, 35, 83−92.
Schweizer, K., & Moosbrugger, H. (2004). Attention and working memory as predictors
of intelligence. Intelligence, 32, 329−347.
Schwinger, M., Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2009). How do motivational regulation
strategies affect achievement: Mediated by effort management and moderated by
intelligence. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 621−627.
Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2007). Predicting school achievement from motivation and
personality. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 21, 207−216.
Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2008). Sex differences in school achievement: What are the
roles of personality and achievement motivation? European Journal of Personality,
22, 185−209.
Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2009). The importance of motivation as a predictor of
school achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 80−90.
Tramontana, M. G., Hooper, S. R., Curley, A. D., & Nardolillo, E. M. (1990). Determinants
of academic achievement in children with psychiatric disorders. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29, 265−268.
Weinert, F. E., & Schneider, W. (1999). Individual development from 3 to 12: Findings
from the Munich Longitudinal Study. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.