English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Stoet and Geary (1) report important cross-cultural findings on how the advantage of females in reading proficiencies relative to males combined with more equitable educational opportunities have contributed to the recent overrepresentation of women in tertiary education. Developed nations vary in the extent to which males are underrepresented as a function of these two determinants, yet that they jointly contribute to a clear cross-cultural trend is undeniable. Hence, it is critical to assess personal proficiencies and the environmental contexts within which they operate to understand individual and gender differences in educational outcomes.Further refinements in how far students progress in educational systems, why group disparities exist, and which specific disciplines students pursue are provided by examining other aspects of their individuality more holistically and simultaneously. This commentary places the assessment of human individuality into a broader (multidimensional) context. Major reviews of psychological research show that individual differences in both level and pattern of cognitive abilities and educational/occupational interests are critical for understanding educational, occupational, and creative outcomes across the lifespan (2⇓–4). Incorporating cognitive abilities and interests into longitudinal research demonstrates how these two categories of psychological attributes give rise to different real-world accomplishments. That information allows us to understand each student’s individuality, their learning needs, and develop policies for best practices. This commentary is to give readers a better understanding of why both inter- and intraindividual differences in abilities and interests must be considered when conceptualizing individual and group differences in real-life learning and work outcomes.To enrich the perspective of Stoet and Geary’s findings (1), two additional cognitive abilities, mathematical/quantitative and spatial/mechanical, are examined in the context of reading/verbal ability. These three constitute the central pillars of the hierarchical organization of cognitive abilities (5). The central dimension of this hierarchy constitutes general intelligence (that is, what … [↵][1]1Email: david.lubinski{at}vanderbilt.edu. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1

Understanding educational, occupational, and creative outcomes requires assessing intraindividual differences in abilities and interests