Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology

18 (2003) 865878

Gender differences in memory test performance

among children and adolescents
Patricia A. Lowe a , Joan W. Mayfield b , Cecil R. Reynolds c,
a

University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66044, USA

Baylor Pediatric Specialty Services, Baylor, TX, USA
c
Department of Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4225, USA
b

Accepted 27 May 2002

Abstract
Gender differences among children and adolescents were examined on 14 separate measures of
short-term memory. A nationally stratified sample of 1,279 children and adolescents, 637 males and
642 females, ranging in age between 5 and 19 years, were assessed on the 14 subtests of the Test of
Memory and Learning (TOMAL). Factor structure of the TOMAL was determined to be invariant as
a function of gender. Using age-corrected deviation scaled scores calculated at 1-year intervals, results
of a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed only two significant differences
in absolute scores across gender on the 14 memory subtests. A profile of normal variations in patterns
of memory test performance across gender revealing relative strengths for females on verbal tasks and
males on spatial tasks is presented for clinical use and future normative comparisons.
2002 National Academy of Neuropsychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Gender differences; Memory test; Children; Adults

1. Introduction
Gender differences in memory performance have seldom been examined explicitly (Herlitz,
Nilsson, & Backman, 1997). However, studies which have examined the relationship between
gender and memory test performance in adults have produced equivocal findings with some

Corresponding author. Present address: 909 Pecan Street, Bastrop, TX 78602, USA. Tel.: +1-512-321-4320;
fax: +1-512-321-4320.
E-mail address: crrh@bluebon.net (C.R. Reynolds).
0887-6177/$ see front matter 2002 National Academy of Neuropsychology.
PII: S 0 8 8 7 - 6 1 7 7 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 6 2 - 2

866

P.A. Lowe et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 18 (2003) 865878

studies reporting a significant relationship (e.g., Albus et al., 1997; Bolla-Wilson & Bleecker,
1986; Geffen, Moar, OHanlon, & Clark, 1990; McGivern et al., 1998; Ruff, Light, &
Quayhagen, 1989) and other studies finding no relationship (e.g., Freides & Avery, 1991;
McCarty, Siegler, & Logue, 1982) between gender and memory test scores. Similarly, research
investigating the association between memory test scores and gender in children
and adolescents has produced mixed results (e.g., Aliotti & Rajabiun, 1991; Boivin, 1991;
Forrester & Geffen, 1991; Huang, 1993; Robinson, Abbott, Berninger, & Busse, 1996; Temple
& Cornish, 1993; Ullman, McKee, Campbell, Larrabee, & Trahan, 1997). Temple and
Cornish (1993) assessed gender differences among a nonclinical sample of 64 females and 64
males, ranging in age from 9 to 21 years on a verbal memory recognition task. Temple and
Cornish found that females outperformed males on this verbal memory task. In another study
examining gender differences, Robinson et al. (1996) reported significantly higher scores for
male than female preschoolers and kindergartners on a visual-spatial working memory task.
Robinson et als. sample consisted of 778 children who were considered advanced in mathematical reasoning ability. Likewise, Huang (1993) found Chinese adolescent males outscored
adolescent females on a visual-spatial memory task, whereas Chinese adolescent girls outperformed adolescent boys on a verbal memory task. In contrast, other studies such as Aliotti
and Rajabiun (1991), Forrester and Geffen (1991), and Ullman et al. (1997) have found no
relationship between gender and memory test performance. Ullman et al. (1997) assessed 138
children, 67 females and 71 males, in grades 15. The authors found no significant gender
differences on a task measuring visual recognition memory. Likewise, Forrester and Geffen
(1991) found no gender differences on an auditory learning task for 40 girls and 40 boys between the ages of 7 and 15. Based on these results, it is unclear whether gender differences in
memory test performance in children and adolescents really do exist. Moreover, these studies,
which produced equivocal findings, examined gender differences in memory test performance
using instruments that assessed very narrow-band aspects of memory, each with a different
normative base. Whether a clearer picture of the relationship between gender and memory test
performance would emerge if a comprehensive memory battery wherein all tests are normed
on a common sample and using tasks designed specifically to assess children and adolescents
memory was used instead of a narrow-band measure is not known.
Four memory batteries are now available for children (Goldstein & Incagnoli, 1997), with
some batteries being more comprehensive than others. The four memory batteries include the
Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning (WRAML; Sheslow & Adams, 1990), the
California Verbal Learning Test for Children (CVLT; Delis, Kramer, Kaplan, & Ober, 1994),
the Childrens Memory Scale (CMS; Wechsler, 1995), and the Test of Memory and Learning
(TOMAL; Reynolds & Bigler, 1994).
The TOMAL is the most comprehensive of these memory batteries and is designed to
emphasize the broad-based as well as the narrow-band aspects of memory (Reynolds & Bigler,
1994). The TOMAL consists of 14 subtests (see Fig. 1). Of these 14 subtests, 10 subtests make
up the core battery. The core battery consists of five verbal and five nonverbal subtests. Besides
the core battery, four supplementary subtests (three verbal and one nonverbal) are included.
Delayed recall tasks are also available in this comprehensive memory measure.
The TOMAL has solid psychometric properties with very high reliability coefficients at the
subtest-level making it particularly useful in the study of individual differences (see Reynolds

P.A. Lowe et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 18 (2003) 865878

Fig. 1. TOMAL subtests.

867

868

P.A. Lowe et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 18 (2003) 865878

& Bigler, 1994). In a factor analytic study with the TOMAL standardization sample, Reynolds
and Bigler (1995) examined two-, three-, and four-factor structures of the memory tasks of the
TOMAL and came to the conclusion that a four-factor structure of memory represented the
best fit to the data. The TOMALs four factors include a Complex Memory Factor, Sequential
Recall Factor, Backwards Recall Factor, and Spatial Memory Factor. In addition to these four
factors, a general memory factor (gmemory ), similar to g in cognitive measures (but not as
strong, leaving more specific variance for each task), emerged. Whether these factors would
be comparable across gender for a child and adolescent sample is not unknown. The purpose
of the present study was to examine the factor structure of the TOMAL for boys and for girls to
determine the comparability of the tests factors across gender and to determine whether any
malefemale differences exist in mean levels of performance. A profile of normal variations in
patterns of memory test performance across gender was also produced for clinical and future
normative comparison.

2. Method
2.1. Subjects
Participants for the current study consisted of 1279 individuals, 637 males and 642 females,
from the TOMAL standardization sample. The subjects ranged in age from 5 to 19 years
with a mean age of 10.65 years (S.D. = 3.62 years) for the total sample. The mean age of
females was 10.84 years (S.D. = 3.68 years) and the mean age of males was 10.58 years
(S.D. = 3.61 years). Racial composition of the total sample included Anglo European (82%),
African American (11%) and Others (3%). The total sample included individuals who resided
in the different regions of the United States: Northeast (15%), North Central (24%), South
(34%), and West (23%). Four percent of the samples residency status was not available.
In addition to the nonreported residency status, data were not available for 45 individuals,
representing 3% of the current sample, on the gender variable (i.e., gender was not coded during
the data collection process) and thus, these individuals were excluded from the analyses. Data
analyses revealed, however, a nonsignificant difference in age between those individuals who
were excluded and those individuals in the current sample, t(1322) = .36, P > .05, as well as
a nonsignificant difference in race (majority vs minority) between those individuals who were
excluded and the current sample, z = 1.67, P > .05. However, a larger number of individuals
proportion-wise from the southern as opposed to the nonsouthern region of the United States
were included in the group of individuals excluded from the current sample, 2 (3) = 21.6,
P < .05.
The TOMAL standardization sample initially was stratified based on estimates of the 1990
U.S. Census and later corrected based on updated reports through 1992. The sample was
stratified on the basis of age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, geographic region, and
community size. Population-proportionate sampling was used to ensure the representativeness
of the sample relative to the normal 1990 U.S. child and adolescent population. Data were
collected from 17 states including California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania,

P.A. Lowe et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 18 (2003) 865878

869

Texas, Utah, and Washington. A more detailed description of the TOMALs standardization
sample characteristics are provided by Reynolds and Bigler (1994).
2.2. Instrument
The core and supplementary subtests (sans the four delayed recall tasks) of the TOMAL were
used. The core and supplementary subtests are designed to give information on specific and
general aspects of memory and are used to derive the Core Indexes, Supplementary Indexes, and
the Composite Memory Index. The core subtests include Memory for Stories, Word Selective
Reminding, Object Recall, Digits Forward, Paired Recall, Facial Memory, Visual Selective
Reminding, Abstract Visual Memory, Visual Sequential Memory, and Memory for Location.
The ten core subtests are used to derive the Composite Memory Index. In addition to the core
subtests, there are four supplementary subtests, including Letters Forward, Letters Backward,
Digits Backward, and Manual Imitation.
Internal consistencies of the subtests and composites, represented by Cronbachs coefficient
alphas and reported at one-year age intervals for the standardization sample, are uniformly
high, with all composites and 63% of the subtests reliability coefficients at .90 and above; 31%
of the subtests reliability coefficients are between .80 and .89; and only 6% of the subtests
reliability coefficients fall below .80, with none below .74, excluding the delayed recall tasks.
Test-retest reliability coefficients of the subtests and composites reported over an average
6-week testing interval ranging from .71 to .92, with all composite index reliability coefficient
values exceeding .80. Extensive evidence of the validity of the TOMAL has also been noted.
Evidence for content-descriptive, criterion-predictive, and construct validity of the TOMAL
test scores has been reported (see Reynolds & Bigler, 1994, (Table 4)).
2.3. Procedure
To assess accurately differences in mean levels of performance of two or more groups
across any set of variables (such as a profile of cognitive test scores such as on the TOMAL
or a Wechsler scale for example), one must first determine whether the latent structure of the
variables is common across the groups being compared. If the latent constructs assessed are
different or lack common dimensionality, artifactual differences in performance may appear
when mean scores are compared (e.g., see Jensen, 1980, for a detailed explanation). Essentially
this can occur because the groups may not have been measured on common dimensions or
constructs and thus one is comparing performance on different constructs even though the
stimuli may be constant across groups. If the groups differ on these unknown dimensions,
differential regression effects may occur as well and produce artifactual differences in profiles
across groups. The best approach to evaluate the comparability of the latent structure of the
variables across groups is to make use of some form of comparative factor analysis (Jensen,
1980; Reynolds, 2000), and that is the approach taken herein (see also Table 3).
The responses of the 1279 children and adolescents were converted to age-corrected deviation scaled scores (Mean = 10, S.D. = 3) based on 1-year intervals using the standard
conversion tables in the TOMAL Manual. The childrens responses were then factor analyzed
for the total sample through the method of principal axis factoring with R2 in the diagonal of

870

P.A. Lowe et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 18 (2003) 865878

the item correlation matrix as the initial communality (h2 ) estimates. Principal axis factoring
was selected as the method of extracting factors because it is a conservative method and it
does not assume perfect reliability of the variables input to the analysis. Once extracted, the
factors were rotated through oblique (Promax) and orthogonal (Varimax) procedures.
Exploratory approaches to the data seemed more appropriate since the choice of factor
extraction methods among psychometricians remains largely subjective. The Promax rotation
procedure, an oblique solution, was chosen because it simplifies the pattern or factor structure
and allows the natural intercorrelation of the underlying factors to be seen and to influence
the analyses. On the other hand, the Varimax rotation procedure, an orthogonal solution, was
selected because it tends to add clarity to the factor structure, approximates simple structure,
and assumes that the underlying factors are independent. Both of these rotation procedures
also tend to produce clinically useful solutions that have the greatest applications to practice
questions. Both sets of results are reported here as an aide to future researchers as well as to
assess any variations in outcome that may have occurred by virtue of forcing the results to an
orthogonal or an oblique solution.
Four-factor Promax and Varimax solutions were obtained for the current sample, as had
occurred in the original analyses of the TOMALs standardization sample. The four-factor
Promax and Varimax solutions were the clearest and most interpretable solutions for the
current sample. Four-factors were then extracted through principal axis factoring and rotated
via the Promax and Varimax procedures for the male and female subsamples.
To determine the degree of similarity of the factors across gender, two indices of factorial
similarity were calculated between pairs of corresponding factors as recommended in several
sources (e.g., Reynolds, 2000), the coefficient of congruence (rc ; Gorsuch, 1988; Harman,
1976) and the salient variable similarity index (s; Cattell, 1978). The coefficient of congruence
is a measure that evaluates the shared variance between factors. A value of .90 or above indicates
a high degree of similarity between factors or factorial invariance. Since the coefficient of congruence statistic is sensitive to violations of the assumptions of equivalent variancecovariance
matrices, normal distributions, and to factor size, the salient variable similarity index was also
computed along with rc . The salient variable similarity index is a nonparametric statistic that
is not a measure of shared variance between factors. The s statistic assesses factorial similarity
by distinguishing categorically those variables that load or do not load on both factors of a
matched pair from those variables that load on only one factor of a matched pair or fail to
meet the factor loading criterion cutoff of .20 on one or both factors of a matched pair. The
probability of this overlap of the variables on factors of a matched pair that is categorically
defined is known as the s statistic. A conservative value .20 to denote saliency, instead of
.10, was chosen to take a conservative stance and not over interpret the results. An s value
may range from 1.00 to 1.00 with a 0.00 value indicating no relationship between the corresponding factors. Significant tests are used to assess s, whereas the magnitude of rc is more
crucial; rc is a measure of shared variance but s is not. A statistically significant s-value, which
suggests factorial invariance, is determined by the magnitude of the s-value, the number of
variables (e.g., subtests) present, and the number of variables located in the hyperplane (see
Cattell, 1978, for tables).
In addition to the factor analytic procedures, means and standard deviations were computed separately for males and females on the 14 subtests. A multivariate analysis of variance

P.A. Lowe et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 18 (2003) 865878

871

(MANOVA) was computed to compare the mean levels of performance on the 14 subtests
across gender. The MANOVA was followed by univariate F tests with Bonferroni type adjustments. The General Linear Model (GLM) Multivariate Analysis procedure was used in
these computations. The GLM model was selected over more conventional multivariate analysis procedures because of its correction for unequal cell sizes. Fourteen, one-way analyses of
variance (ANOVAs) were then conducted across gender with the 14 subtest scaled scores serving as the dependent variables in separate analyses. The GLM Factorial Analysis of Variance
procedure was used in computing the ANOVAs to correct for unequal cell sizes.
A profile of normal variation in patterns of memory-test performance across gender was also
determined based upon patterns of relative, as opposed to absolute, strengths and weaknesses.
Partial correlations between gender and subtest scaled score for each subtest holding the gender
Composite Memory Index scaled score constant were calculated. All analyses were performed
using the 1996 version of SPSS, release 7.5.

3. Results and discussion

Prior analyses of the entire sample (Reynolds & Bigler, 1995) revealed that a four-factor
solution to the intercorrelation matrix was the best fit to the data. Following Reynolds (2000)
recommendations, this same solution was extracted separately for males and females following
a determination that more than one latent construct was in evidence.
The four-factor solutions for the sample in the present study yielded KaiserMeyerOlkin
(KMO) measures of sampling adequacy of .85. These values are considered to be good and
suggest the correlations between pairs of variables can be explained by the other variables, and
factor analysis is an appropriate method used to analyze these relationships. Bartletts test of
sphericity was also computed and was found to be statistically significant, 2 (91) = 3458.20,
P = .001 for the four-factor solutions for the total sample. Therefore, the hypothesis that the
population correlation matrix is an identity matrix was rejected. The four-factor Promax and
Varimax solutions for the male and female subsamples are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
Visual inspection of Tables 1 and 2 reveal similarities as well as a few minor differences
in outcome across gender. One subtest that loaded highest on the Sequential Recall for males,
Visual Sequential Memory, loaded highest on the Spatial Memory Factor for females in both
the Promax and Varimax solutions. Facial Memory moved from the Spatial Memory Factor
for females to the Complex Memory Factor for males for both solutions. On the other hand,
Memory for Stories loaded highest on the Complex Memory Factor for females but loaded on
both the Complex Memory Factor and Spatial Memory Factor for males in both the Promax
and Varimax solutions. These changes, however, are relatively inconsequential. No consistent
pattern of alteration is evident, and the difference in the magnitude of the loadings is small.
The coefficients of congruence and the salient variable similarity indices between corresponding factors are shown in Table 3. The coefficients of congruence for the malefemale
comparisons range from .80 on the Spatial Memory Factor to .97 on the Sequential Memory
Factor for the Promax solution and from .92 on the Backward Recall Factor to .99 on the Sequential Recall Factor for the Varimax solution. In addition, all of the salient variable similarity
indices were statistically significant (P < .05) for both the Promax and Varimax solutions.

872

P.A. Lowe et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 18 (2003) 865878

Table 1
Factor pattern coefficients for the female and male subsamples for the four-factor Promax solution
Factor I

Factor II

Factor III

Factor IV

Subtest

Memory for Stories

Word Selective Reminding
Object Recall
Digits Forward

.03
.06
.12
.89

.09
.05
.00
.93

.40
.45
.36
.02

.15
.68
.69
.00

.15
.08
.06
.04

.06
.09
.03
.08

.07
.17
.21
.07

.15
.15
.01
.10

Paired Recall
Letters Forward
Digits Backward
Letters Backward

.00
.76
.04
.02

.14
.61
.11
.01

.79
.02
.02
.04

.47
.03
.06
.07

.02
.01
.70
.86

.15
.02
.58
.89

.17
.05
.01
.02

.08
.04
.10
.04

Facial Memory
Visual Selective Reminding
Abstract Visual Memory
Visual Sequential Memory
Memory for Location
Manual Imitation

.22
.05
.03
.11
.02
.21

.08
.03
.04
.23
.06
.21

.10
.04
.19
.11
.01
.02

.39
.12
.07
.12
.08
.02

.04
.01
.20
.09
.04
.06

.28
.06
.09
.06
.00
.20

.47
.44
.28
.54
.43
.37

.26
.28
.43
.10
.70
.27

Although the rc values for the Complex Memory Factor and Spatial Memory Factor for the
Promax solution are below .90, these rc values are very close to the .90 value. In addition,
the s-value is significant in each case between the male and female corresponding factors.
On the other hand, the Varimax solution produced rc values above .90 for all malefemale

Table 2
Factor patternstructure coefficients for the female and male subsamples for the four-factor Varimax solution
Factor I

Factor II

Factor III

Factor IV

gmemory

Subtest

Memory for Stories

Word Selective Reminding
Object Recall
Digits Forward

.10
.17
.21
.82

.16
.18
.14
.84

.41
.46
.40
.17

.21
.62
.65
.17

.23
.09
.11
.22

.13
.18
.10
.18

.19
.28
.31
.16

.21
.05
.18
.09

.47
.50
.51
.69

.35
.53
.54
.66

Paired Recall
Letters Forward
Digits Backward
Letters Backward

.09
.72
.22
.22

.04
.60
.29
.26

.65
.18
.20
.16

.46
.13
.12
.23

.11
.21
.64
.75

.20
.22
.56
.81

.10
.24
.22
.21

.20
.17
.23
.17

.47
.68
.67
.67

.45
.58
.73
.73

Facial Memory
Visual Selective Reminding
Abstract Visual Memory
Visual Sequential Memory
Memory for Location
Manual Imitation

.05
.15
.13
.21
.11
.31

.12
.08
.17
.27
.08
.31

.22
.13
.31
.09
.15
.16

.39
.19
.21
.23
.10
.14

.13
.11
.29
.07
.10
.14

.12
.12
.18
.12
.10
.28

.41
.38
.35
.44
.37
.38

.29
.30
.44
.18
.62
.33

.35
.39
.54
.41
.39
.53

.34
.33
.48
.40
.41
.52

P.A. Lowe et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 18 (2003) 865878

873

Table 3
Coefficients of congruence and salient variable similarity indices between corresponding factors of the TOMAL
for males and females
Coefficient of congruence

Salient variable similarity index

Factor

Promax

Varimax

Promax

Varimax

I
II
III
IV

.97
.83
.95
.80

.99
.93
.92
.93

.75
.75
.50
.86

.86
.80
.55
.63

P < .05.
P < .01.

corresponding factors as well as statistically significant salient variable similarity indexes

for each pair of factors. Psychometricians are far from agreement on which solution to use
when judging whether factors are similar across nominal groupings of subjects. The Varimax
solution appears to be a better fit, in this case, to the data than the Promax solution. Thus, the
better fit across groups for the Varimax solution and reasonably good fit across groups for the
Promax solution, a potentially inferior solution, support the notion that these specific factors
are highly similar if not actually invariant across gender.
A large general memory factor, the first unrotated factor, also emerged. This finding suggests
a strong tendency for the memory tasks to trend in a constant direction. The large value of
the coefficient of congruence (rc = .99) and statistically significant salient variable similarity
index (s = +1.00) show that this general memory factor is constant across gender.
Since the factor structure of the TOMAL is so highly similar across gender, the difference
in the mean scores between males and females were examined on all 14 subtests. The mean
scores and standard deviations for males and females are depicted in Table 4.
Prior to computing the MANOVA, a Boxs M test of equality of covariance matrices,
Bartletts test of sphericity, and tests of multicollinearity and singularity were performed.
Boxs M test was significant, F(105, 3803951) = 1.53, P < .05. Although a violation of
the homogeneity of variancecovariance matrices assumption exists, it is unlikely that the
MANOVA is affected due to a large sample size and the subsamples are relatively equal in
size. Under these circumstances, the alpha level is conservative and the MANOVA statistic is
robust to violations of the homogeneity variancecovariance matrices (Tabachnick & Fidell,
1989). In contrast, Bartletts test of sphericity was significant, 2 (104) = 3.727.19, P < .001,
and lead to the rejection of the hypothesis that the correlation matrix was an identity matrix. Furthermore, no evidence of multicollinearity and singularity was present as regressions
were performed with each dependent variable in turn serving as the dependent variable with
all other dependent variables serving as the independent variables in the analyses. Based on
these analyses, R2 for the dependent variables ranged from .14 to .48 and tolerance statistics for the dependent variables ranged from .53 to .87. The MANOVA was then computed
and results are reported in terms of Pillais Trace. The MANOVA produced a significant
main effect for gender, F(14, 1092) = 3.30, P < .001, but with a very small effect size
(d = .04).

874

P.A. Lowe et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 18 (2003) 865878

Table 4
Means and (S.D.) on the TOMAL by gender
Gender
Subtest

Male

Female

Memory for Stories

Word Selective Reminding
Object Recall
Digits Forward

10.06 (3.23)
9.87 (2.85)
9.86 (3.05)
10.02 (3.32)

10.07 (3.16)
10.56 (2.87)
10.47 (3.09)
10.11 (3.50)

Paired Recall
Letters Forward
Digits Backward
Letters Backward

9.88 (2.77)
10.09 (3.16)
10.23 (3.14)
9.97 (3.39)

10.06 (2.84)
10.23 (3.23)
10.36 (3.33)
10.42 (3.51)

Facial Memory
Visual Selective Reminding
Abstract Visual Memory
Visual Sequential Memory
Memory for Location
Manual Imitation

9.81 (2.65)
9.43 (3.31)
10.10 (2.97)
9.83 (3.02)
9.93 (4.08)
9.85 (3.21)

10.15 (2.96)
9.73 (3.32)
9.75 (3.06)
9.83 (2.98)
9.49 (3.93)
9.72 (3.32)

P < .003.

Before computing the follow-up univariate F tests, Bonferroni type adjustments (which
are notably conservative in nature) were made due to the possibility of an inflated Type I
error rate due to multiple significance testing. The alpha level for these univariate F tests was
set at .003. In addition, Levenes test of equality of error variances was calculated for each
dependent variable. Levenes test of equality of error variances was found to be significant
for the Facial Memory subtest only, F(1, 1277) = 8.02, P < .05. Although a violation of
the homogeneity of variance assumption exists, it is unlikely that the ANOVA is affected
due to the relatively large sample size and small actual difference between the variances.
Under these conditions, ANOVA statistics are robust to violations of homogeneity of variance
(McCall, 1975). Univariate F tests were then calculated. The univariate F tests revealed that
females scored significantly higher than males on the Word Selective Reminding subtest,
F(1, 1277) = 16.02, P < .001, but with a small effect size (d = .01) and Object Recall
subtest, F(1, 1277) = 11.07, P < .001, but again with a small effect size (d = .01). The
Object Recall subtest requires the examinee to pair verbal and nonverbal stimuli and to recall
the association verbally, whereas the Word Selective Reminding subtest is a verbal free-recall
task. Both Word Selective Reminding and Object Recall are considered to be verbal tasks.
These results are consistent with studies of intelligence in which females have been found to
outperform males on certain verbal tasks (Born, Bleichrodt, & van der Flier, 1987; Maccoby
& Jacklin, 1974). However, these differences represent absolute differences in scores that may
be related to malefemale differences on the overall composite scores. It is also of interest to
ascertain whether there are any differences remaining when overall level of memory skill is
controlled across groups. This can be calculated by use of the method of partial correlation
wherein total test score (in the case of the TOMAL, the Composite Memory Index) is held
constant or partialled from the analysis.

P.A. Lowe et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 18 (2003) 865878

875

Table 5
Partial correlations between gender and each subtest holding the gender composite memory index constant
Subtest

Memory for Stories

Word Selective Reminding
Object Recall
Digits Forward

.02
.12
.09
.02

Paired Recall
Letters Forward
Digits Backward
Letters Backward
Facial Memory
Visual Selective Reminding
Abstract Visual Memory
Visual Sequential Memory
Memory for Location
Manual Imitation

.01
.00
.00
.04
.05
.03
.10
.03
.10
.04

P < .01.

Partial correlations between gender and subtest scaled score for each subtest holding the
gender Composite Memory Index scaled score constant ranged from .10 to .12 (see Table 5).
Four partial correlations were significant: Object Recall, Memory for Location, Abstract Visual
Memory, and Word Selective Reminding. Thus, a gender difference independent of any overall
memory difference exists for these four subtests. Object Recall and Word Selective Reminding,
as mentioned previously, are verbal tasks and females, as a whole, did better on these tasks
than males. On the other hand, males outperformed females on the Memory for Location and
Abstract Visual Memory subtests. Memory for Location and Abstract Visual Memory are
spatial memory tasks. Again, these results are consistent with studies of intelligence in which
males have been reported to outperform females on spatial tasks (Kaufman, 1990; Kaufman,
KaufmanPacker, McLean, & Reynolds, 1991).
The results from the current study provide substantial support for the presence of a general
memory factor (gmemory ), similar to g on cognitive measures, and four specific factors of
memory: Complex Memory Factor, Sequential Recall Factor, Backwards Recall Factor, and
Spatial Memory Factor on the TOMAL. These results are consistent with previous studies on
the factor structure of the TOMAL (Mayfield & Reynolds, 1997; Reynolds & Bigler, 1995).
The findings also suggest that the general memory factor and four specific memory factors are
similar across gender. In other words, these factors are essentially invariant across the nominal
grouping variable of gender. Since the latent structure is similar for males and females on the
TOMAL, these results argue for the same score interpretation for both males and females. The
mean level of performance for females was statistically significantly different from males on
only two subtests, Word Selective Reminding and Object Recall. Word Selective Reminding
and Object Recall are verbal tasks. These findings are consistent with the literature in which
females have been reported to outperform males on tests of certain verbal abilities (e.g., Born
et al., 1987; Grant & Adams, 1996; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974, (Table 5)). The results also

876

P.A. Lowe et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 18 (2003) 865878

do not substantiate the presence of bias in the test scores or in the construct validity of the
TOMAL across gender.
After controlling for any overall memory effects, females scored higher on two verbal
subtests: Word Selective Reminding and Object Recall, and males scored higher on the Memory
for Location and Abstract Visual Memory subtests, the key spatial memory tasks on the battery.
These findings are consistent with studies of intelligence with regards to pattern, , females
performing higher on certain verbal tasks and males performing higher on certain spatial tasks
(Born et al., 1987; Grant & Adams, 1996; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). However, as also happens
with ethnic differences on memory tasks, the magnitude is reduced (Mayfield & Reynolds,
1997). Malefemale differences on the TOMAL are thus consistent with known outcomes in
many other studies of gender differences in aptitude (e.g., Kaufman, 1990; Kaufman et al.,
1991; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974), but are of no real clinical consequence. Despite differences
by gender in neurological organization of cognitive functions (Kolb & Whishaw, 1996), there
is a common substrate to memory across gender.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Arthur MacNeill Horton, Associate Editor, for handling all editorial matters including reviewing and publication decisions regarding this manuscript independently.

References
Albus, M., Hubmann, W., Mohr, F., Scherer, J., Sobizack, N., Franz, U., Hecht, S., Borrmann, M.,
& Wahlheim, C. (1997). Are there gender differences in neuropsychological performance in patients with
first-episode schizophrenia? Schizophrenia Research, 28, 3950.
Aliotti, N. C., & Rajabiun, D. A. (1991). Visual memory development in preschool children. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 73, 792794.
Boivin, M. J. (1991). The effect of culture on a visual-spatial memory task. Journal of General Psychology, 118(4),
327334.
Bolla-Wilson, K., & Bleecker, M. L. (1986). Influence of verbal intelligence, sex, age, and education on the Rey
Auditory Verbal Learning Test. Developmental Neuropsychology, 2(3), 203211.
Born, M. P., Bleichrodt, N., & van der Flier, H. (1987). Cross-cultural comparison of sex-related differences on
intelligence tests. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 283314.
Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in the behavioral and life sciences. New York: Plenum
Press.
Delis, D. C., Kramer, J., Kaplan, E., & Ober, B. A. (1994). California Verbal Learning TestChildrens version.
New York: The Psychological Corporation.
Forrester, G., & Geffen, G. (1991). Performance measures of 7- to 15-year-old children on the Auditory Verbal
Learning Test. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 5(4), 345359.
Freides, D., & Avery, M. E. (1991). Narrative and visual spatial recall: Assessment incorporating learning and
delayed retention. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 5, 338344.
Geffen, G., Moar, K. J., OHanlon, A. P., & Clark, C. (1990). The Auditory Verbal Learning Test: Performance
of 1686 year olds of average intelligence. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 4, 4563.
Goldstein, G., & Incagnoli, T. (1997). Contemporary approaches to neuropsychological assessment. New York:
Plenum Press.

P.A. Lowe et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 18 (2003) 865878

877

Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Exploratory factor analysis. In J. Nesselroade & R. Cattell (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate
experimental psychology (2nd ed., pp. 231258). New York: Plenum Press.
Grant, I., & Adams, K. (1996). Neuropsychological assessment of neuropsychiatric disorders. New York: Oxford
Press.
Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Herlitz, A., Nilsson, L. G., & Backman, L. (1997). Gender differences in episodic memory. Memory & Cognition,
25(6), 801811.
Huang, J. (1993). An investigation of gender differences in cognitive abilities among Chinese high school students.
Personality and Individual Differences, 15(6), 717719.
Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: The Free Press.
Kaufman, A. S. (1990). Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Kaufman, A. S., Kaufman-Packer, J. L., McLean, J. E., & Reynolds, C. R. (1991). Is the pattern of intellectual
growth and decline across the adult life span different for men and women? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47,
801812.
Kolb, B., & Whishaw, I. (1996). Fundamentals of human neuropsychology (4th ed.). New York: Freeman.
Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Mayfield, J. W., & Reynolds, C. R. (1997). BlackWhite differences in memory test performance among children
and adolescents. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 12(2), 111122.
McCall, R. B. (1975). Fundamental statistics for psychology (2nd ed.). Atlanta: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
McCarty, S. M., Siegler, I. C., & Logue, P. E. (1982). Cross-sectional and longitudinal patterns of three Wechsler
Memory Scale subtests. Journal of Gerontology, 37, 169175.
McGivern, R. F., Mutter, K. L., Anderson, J., Wideman, G., Bodnar, M., & Huston, P. (1998). Gender differences
in incidental learning and visual recognition memory: Support for a sex difference in unconscious environmental
awareness. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 223232.
Reynolds, C. R. (2000). Methods for detecting and evaluating cultural bias in neuropsychological tests. In
E. Fletcher-Janzen, T. Strickland, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural neuropsychology
(pp. 249286). New York: Plenum Press.
Reynolds, C. R., & Bigler, E. D. (1994). Test of Memory and Learning (TOMAL). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Reynolds, C. R., & Bigler, E. D. (1995). Factor structure, factor indexes, and other useful statistics for interpretation
of the Test of Memory and Learning (TOMAL). Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 11(1), 2943.
Robinson, N. M., Abbott, R. D., Berninger, V. W., & Busse, J. (1996). The structure of abilities in math-precocious
young children: Gender similarities and differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 341352.
Ruff, R. M., Light, R. H., & Quayhagen, M. (1989). Selective Reminding Tests: A normative study of verbal
learning in adults. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 11(4), 539550.
Sheslow, D., & Adams, W. (1990). Wide range assessment of memory and learning. Wilmington, DE: Jastak.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
Temple, C. M., & Cornish, K. M. (1993). Recognition memory for words and faces in schoolchildren: A female
advantage for words. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11(4), 421426.
Ullman, D. G., McKee, D. T., Campbell, K. E., Larrabee, G. J., & Trahan, D. E. (1997). Preliminary childrens
norms for the Continuous Visual Memory Test. Child Neuropsychology, 3(3), 171175.
Wechsler, D. (1995). Childrens Memory Scale. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Further reading
Kaufman, A. S., McLean, J. E., & Reynolds, C. R. (1988). Sex, race, residence, region, and education differences
on the 11 WAISR subtests. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 231248.
Reynolds, C. R. (1995). Test bias and the assessment of personality and intelligence. In D. Saklofske & M. Zeidner
(Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 545573). New York: Plenum Press.

878

P.A. Lowe et al. / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 18 (2003) 865878

Reynolds, C. R. (1997). Measurement and statistical problems in neuropsychological assessment of children. In

C.R. Reynolds & E. Fletcher-Janzen (Eds.), Handbook of clinical child neuropsychology (2nd ed., pp. 180203).
New York: Plenum Press.
Reynolds, C. R., & Bigler, E. D. (1997). Clinical neuropsychological assessment of child and adolescent memory
with the Test of Memory and Learning. In C. R. Reynolds & E. Fletcher-Janzen (Eds.), Handbook of clinical
child neuropsychology (2nd ed., pp. 296319). New York: Plenum Press.