University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The relationship between working memory and achievement among Black and Latinx students

(USC Thesis Other)

The relationship between working memory and achievement among Black and Latinx students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content The Relationship Between Working Memory and Achievement Among Black and Latinx
Students
Jillian Giese
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2024

© Copyright by Jillian Giese 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Jillian Giese certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Artineh Samkian
Erika Patall, Committee Co-chair
Adam Kho, Committee Co-chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
This synthesis examines the relationship between working memory and achievement for
populations with a high percentage of Black and Latinx students. Reports were derived from
Hattie’s “Visible Learning” metacognition strategies and working memory strength influences.
These reports were searched using USC Library Database, Google Scholar, ProQuest, ERIC, and
PsycINFO or via Interlibrary Loan and Document Deliveries. From these influences, 1,058
reports were identified, and 45 of these reports were coded and included. Studies that were 40%
or more Black and/or Latinx, conducted in the United States, and related to working memory
strength were included. Studies were coded to extract relevant information related to the sample,
experimental design, working memory components and tests, outcome domains, and
correlations. Multilevel meta-analysis with robust variance estimation revealed a statistically
significant average correlation of .316 between working memory and achievement among Black
and Latinx samples and little evidence for publication bias. Moderator analyses suggested that
neither the outcome domain nor the match of the working component to the outcome domain
significantly influenced the relationship. The results indicated that as the population of Black and
Latinx students increased, the relationship between working memory and achievement was
weaker. This may be explained by the indirect effect of these populations’ adverse experiences
on working memory, or by possible construct-irrelevant variance in the tests used in included
reports. Limitations of this synthesis include the exclusion of other minority populations, studies
included are limited to those included by Hattie’s (2023) synthesis, and the aforementioned
possible construct-irrelevant variance in the reports.
Keywords: Hattie’s visible learning, working memory, phonological loop, visuospatial
sketchpad, executive component, academic achievement, Black student populations, Latinx

v
student populations, meta-analysis, synthesis, metafor R, clubSandwich R, construct-irrelevant
variance

vi
Dedication
To my mother, my role model, who has shown me time and time again through her own journey
to continue to focus on the good. She gives me the courage to chase my dreams and the strength
to achieve them.
To my husband, for his steadfast confidence in me through every twist and turn of my program.
To my daughters Violet, Vivian, and Chrissy; I am thankful for all they have done for me while I
worked on this synthesis. Thank you for sitting on my lap, drawing beautiful pictures through my
notebook, and cuddling close with me as I zoomed, read, screened, coded, R-studio-ed, and
typed.

vii
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank my dissertation co-chairs, Dr. Erika Patall and Dr. Adam Kho, whose
guidance and expertise were invaluable in the completion of this synthesis. I am grateful for their
unwavering support. I also thank Dr. Artineh Samkian for her thoughtful feedback and optimism
as my committee member and research methods professor. Thank you for supporting me to think
critically and holistically, and to always remember the importance of asking good questions.
In addition, I wish to thank members of my cohort who have been an integral part of my
journey through this program. I am profoundly grateful for my “Joy Buddies” group with Jeralyn
Johnson, Romeo Baldeviso, and Meghan Clark. Their collective wisdom, kindness, and sense of
humor have carried me through this program. Since orientation, Jeralyn Johnson has been a
consistent source of light and strength. Thank you, all.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures................................................................................................................................ xi
Review of Prior Literature .................................................................................................. 3
Defining Working Memory and Achievement ....................................................... 3
Theoretical Foundations for the Relationship Between Working Memory
and Achievement .................................................................................................... 8
The Role of Race/Ethnicity in the Relationship Between Working
Memory and Achievement.................................................................................... 12
Characteristics of the Working Memory Test Contributing to Variation in
the Relationship .................................................................................................... 15
Characteristics of the Outcome Domain Contributing to Variation in the
Relationship .......................................................................................................... 16
The Present Synthesis........................................................................................... 17
Methods............................................................................................................................. 19
Literature Search............................................................................................................... 19
Inclusion Criteria .................................................................................................. 23
Data Extraction ................................................................................................................. 25
Computing Effect Sizes ........................................................................................ 27
Publication Bias................................................................................................................ 28
Moderator Analyses.............................................................................................. 30
Summary of Key Findings................................................................................................ 34
Alignment of Key Findings With Prior Research and Theory ......................................... 34
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 38

ix
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research.................................................. 39
Conclusions....................................................................................................................... 40
References..................................................................................................................................... 41
Appendix A: Coding Guide .......................................................................................................... 56
Appendix B: Table of Characteristics Report............................................................................... 60

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Moderator Analysis Summary…………….…………………………………….... 31
Appendix A: Coding Guide ………………………………………………..……………… 56
Appendix B: Table of Characteristic.……………………………………………….............60

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Prisma Chart ……………………………………………………............................. 23

1
The Relationship Between Working Memory and Achievement Among Black and Latinx
Students
This research synthesis examined the relationship between working memory and student
achievement among Black and Latinx students, targeting research with samples that have high
proportions of Black and Latinx students. Working memory, one’s immediate consciousness
(Cowan, 2014), has been studied intensively since 1960 when the term working memory was
first used by Miller et al. (Baddeley, 2010), with a great deal of research suggesting that it is
predictive of academic achievement (Nguyen & Duncan, 2019).
One source of evidence regarding the relationship between working memory and
achievement comes from the compendium overview of meta-analyses presented in John Hattie’s
“Visible Learning” (2023) in which average effect sizes for 322 influences on student
achievement were computed by combining the findings of many meta-analyses on each of those
influences. Hattie’s (2023) synthesis is referenced in current practice around the world as a
rationale to guide instructional practices and support student achievement. In Hattie’s (2023)
analysis, approximately 700 studies across 12 meta-analyses were synthesized to assess the
effect of metacognition strategies on student achievement. Ultimately, Hattie found that the dindex for the relationship between metacognition strategies and achievement was 0.60,
suggesting that metacognitive strategies have the potential to considerably support student
achievement. The metacognition influence contains many conceptually and empirically distinct
cognitive factors that were combined as a single influence of achievement, potentially masking
important differences among distinct aspects of cognition, which resulted in the focus on one
cognitive component, working memory, that was most prevalent in this influence. To expand on
the data related to working memory, Hattie’s influence on working memory strength on

2
academic achievement was included. For this influence, Hattie synthesized 458 studies across 5
meta-analyses, which resulted in the finding that working memory strength has the potential to
considerably support student achievement (d-index = 0.68).
Clearly, Hattie’s overview of meta-analyses has great value, providing an assessment of
the average effects of a multitude of influences on school achievement. Hattie’s (2023) synthesis
is comprehensive, including students from a variety of cultures throughout the world. However,
it does not account for differences between cultural groups studied and provides limited
information about the extent to which influences relate to achievement for specific racial and
cultural groups. The purpose of this synthesis was to understand the link between working
memory and student achievement, particularly for samples within the United States that are
racially diverse and include a large portion of Black and Latinx students. Research frameworks
that are grounded in the knowledge and culture of individuals of color have the potential to
promote educational excellence for these groups (Tillman, 2002). This meta-analysis builds on
Hattie’s (2023) work by drawing on the exact data included in that synthesis but limiting the
included data to only those that meet my racial sample criteria. As such, this synthesis
illuminates the extent to which one influence from Hattie’s synthesis, working memory, in
particular, relates to the academic achievement for samples that include a sufficient portion of
U.S. Black and Latinx students.
In this meta-analysis, a synthesis was conducted of the 15 articles included in Hattie’s
(2023) synthesis of the link between metacognitive strategies and achievement that were focused
on working memory as well as the 45 reports in the working memory strength influence. I begin
this proposal with definitions of the influence. Next, I provide an overview of the theories related
to the relationship between working memory and achievement and summarize research related to

3
working memory in relation to academic achievement, as well as discuss factors that may
contribute to conflicting results. Finally, I provide an overview of the methods for the current
meta-analysis.
Review of Prior Literature
In the following section, operational and conceptual definitions for working memory and
academic achievement are discussed. Information processing, developmental, and cultural
theories are highlighted as theories that address the relationship between working memory and
achievement. Existing research provides context and insight into possible moderators for the
relationship between working memory and academic achievement for Black and Latinx students.
Defining Working Memory and Achievement
One challenge that emerged as I attempted to build on Hattie’s synthesis of the link
between metacognitive strategies and achievement was that, upon close review of the studies that
met the inclusion criteria, the studies in Hattie’s (2023) meta-analysis categorized as
“metacognition strategies” did not all directly refer to or relate to metacognition as Hattie (2023)
defined it. Hattie (2023) defines “metacognition strategies” as “thinking about thinking; includes
methods used to help students understand the way they learn” (2023, Overview section).
However, the constructs that were assessed in the individual studies that were included in his
synthesis of meta-analyses diversely included constructs such as discussion-based interventions,
family adversity and inhibitory control, classroom environment, behavioral regulation, socialemotional functioning, summarization interventions, student engagement, emotional regulation,
self-efficacy, epistemic cognition, epistemic beliefs, cooperative learning, attention, motivation,
executive functioning, and working memory. Instead of attempting to justify this seemingly
heterogeneous assortment of variables, this meta-analysis focuses primarily on working memory

4
as it relates to academic achievement. After narrowing Hattie’s (2023) studies to meet the sample
inclusion criteria, working memory was the construct most frequently examined and therefore, is
the construct that is most well-studied and subject to synthesis. To follow, working memory is
defined and a review of research on working memory is summarized.
Defining Working Memory
Memory is referred to as a set of cognitive functions that encodes, stores and retrieves
information (Lee, 2014). The most commonly accepted forms of memory include long-term
memory, short-term memory, and working memory, and it is the interaction between these
systems that provides individuals the ability to remember (Lee, 2014). Long-term memory
allows an individual to hold an unspecified amount of information for an indefinite period of
time, compared to short-term memory, which allows individuals to store observed information
for up to thirty seconds (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968). Working memory refers to one’s immediate
consciousness or the limited amount of information being held in an individual’s mind at the
present moment (Cowan, 2014). This information processing stage corresponds to awareness and
operates to store and transform knowledge (Schunk, 2018). Moreover, working memory is a
passageway for information to be integrated with long-term memory storage (Schunk, 2018).
Working memory involves the concurrent processing of a representation of present information
and the maintenance of this information so that an individual may solve problems (Harvey,
2011). Because skills related to working memory are required to problem solve and understand
words and sentences, the functioning of working memory is assumed to be related to solution
accuracy (Swanson, 2011b) and therefore, academic achievement.
Working memory is distinguished from other forms of memory because it reflects both
processing and storage capacity (Baddeley, 1986; Baddeley & Logie, 1999; Just & Carpenter,

5
1992 as cited in Swanson, 2011a). Working memory consists of three components which are the
phonological loop, the visuospatial sketchpad, and the central executive which monitors and
controls the two former (Baddeley & Loggie, 1999). The phonological loop, which is also known
as verbal working memory, functions as temporary storage and rehearsal for auditory
information (Baddeley, 2010). A model of short-term memory extends to include working
memory’s phonological loop due to the manipulation of visually stored information for a brief
period of time (Baddeley, 1986). In this model, the phonological loop is said to focus on visual
information for a few seconds before the memory fades and the visual information is converted
to a phonological code via subvocal naming (Baddeley, 1986). The visuospatial sketchpad, also
known as visual working memory, functions to process and store visual and spatial information
(Baddeley, 2010). In more recent research, working memory models have been developed to
include the episodic buffer, which is also controlled by the central executive to provide
temporary storage of information from the phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, and longterm memory (Baddeley, 2002).
Baddeley suggests (2002) that the capacity of working memory to interact with long-term
memory provides an important function for an individual to convert self-directed speech to
control outcomes as proposed by Vygotskian theory. These control outcomes may be extended to
academic achievement. Vygotsky’s theory will be discussed in the next section.
Operationalization of Working Memory
Studies focused on working memory sometimes measure both the subcomponents of
working memory, as well as a composite measure of working memory (Ezrine, 2010; Swanson,
2011a; Swanson, 2011b; Swanson & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2004). However, most examine
working memory broadly (Fuchs et al., 2005; Fuchs et al., 2008; Hannon, 2014; Harvey, 2011;

6
Lewis et al., 2007; Turner, 2010; Vitiello, 2009; Welsh et al., 2010; Willoughby et al., 2012;
Zheng et al., 2011), with “measures of a child‘s ability to hold information in his or her mind for
the purpose of completing a particular task or making a response” (Harvey, 2011, p. 69). One of
the studies included in this synthesis also measured working memory as a behavioral regulation
skill alongside attention and inhibitory control. Some studies also measure the phonological loop
specifically but refer to this as a subset of short-term memory (Swanson, 2006; Swanson, 2008;
Swanson, 2015; Zheng, 2011). These studies use the same working memory measures to
examine working memory, such as the Numbers Reversed Test described below. This metaanalysis synthesizes data regarding working memory broadly given that few studies examined
subcomponents of working memory.
Studies synthesized in this meta-analysis use a variety of tools to collect data regarding
working memory and vary largely due to the age group being tested. For example, Harvey
(2011) used a rating scale called the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Preschool
(BRIEF-P) test developed by Gioia et al. (2000). This test is a standardized rating scale test
comprised of 63 items that make up five clinical scales (inhibit, shift, emotional control, working
memory, and plan/organize) developed to assess students ages 2–5 to be taken by parents or
teachers. Reliability reports for this test range from 0.80–0.97 (Gioia et al. 2003, as cited in
Harvey, 2011). The questions related to working memory in the BRIEF-P test are related to a
student’s ability to carry out multi-step tasks and follow complex instructions. Scores are
converted to standard scores and percentiles from the scales. Harvey (2011) also uses the SelfOrdered Pointing Task developed by Petrides and Milner (1982, as cited in Harvey 2011) and
adapted by Hongwanishkul et al. (2005, as cited in Harvey, 2011) to examine working memory
to be used for preschool students. In this test, students examine and touch photos as prompted by

7
the researcher, and working memory is quantified by the number of successful trials a student
can complete.
In other studies examining working memory in elementary-aged students, other tests are
used that include numbers, letters, and words. Fuchs et al. (2005 & 2008) use the Working
Memory Test Battery for Children–Listening Recall (WMTB; Pickering & Gathercole, 2005). In
this test, the researcher says a few sentences, of which only a few make sense, and the student
will determine whether the sentences are true or false. Finally, the students will be prompted to
recall the final word of each sentence initially presented by the researcher in the order presented,
and their score is the number of words recalled in the correct order. Fuchs et al. (2008) and
Turner (2010) used the Numbers Reversed test by Woodcock et al. (2001, as cited in Fuchs et al.,
2008). In this test, the researcher says a series of numbers, and the student is prompted to repeat
the numbers backward. This test becomes more challenging as the series of numbers increases in
length. Students’ scores are determined by the number of numbers correctly recited in the correct
order. Welsh et al. (2010) administered a similar test, the Backward Word Span, in which
students listened to a list of words and then were prompted to repeat the words in reverse order.
Working memory was quantified by the number of words recalled in reverse order. A final
varied example of how working memory can be quantified is in Swanson (2011a). Students were
asked to hold increasingly complex information in their memory while also responding to a
question about a specific task. Working memory was then determined by both the item storage as
well as the correct response to questions. In sum, measures of working memory typically are
administered by the researcher to the student and involve the student participant reciting given
numbers or phrases to the researcher. Typical scoring in these tests is calculated using the
number of items recited correctly in proportion to the number presented by the researcher.

8
Higher working memory scores reflect an individual’s ability to hold and process more
information in their mind at a given time.
Defining Achievement
Achievement is “the quality and quantity of a student’s work” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.,
n.p.), and refers to learning outcomes across academic domains or content areas. Academic
achievement is typically a record of a student’s ability to demonstrate their ability given a task.
This may be determined by the student’s objective performance on a task or a review by the
teacher. Achievement was operationalized in a variety of ways in the studies included in this
synthesis. Achievement was operationalized by way of SAT scores (Hannon, 2014), problemsolving accuracy (Fuchs et al., 2008; Harvey, 2011; Swanson, 2011b; Swanson & BeeneFrankenberger, 2004; Zheng et al., 2011), Peabody Vocabulary Test scores (Corbo, 2012),
standardized achievement tests (Lewis et al., 2007; Willoughby et al., 2012; Swanson, 2011a),
and teachers’ subjective assessments (Turner, 2010). Standardized measures of achievement that
are typically used in research on its relationship with achievement include the Wide Range
Achievement Test (Wilkinson, 1993), Print Knowledge, Blending, and Elision scales of the Test
of Preschool Early Literacy (Welsh et al., 2010) and the Applied Problems scale of the
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement test (Fuchs et al., 2005; Turner, 2010; Welsh et al.,
2010) as well as the Learning Express test (Vitiello, 2009) and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test, Third Edition (Ezrine, 2010).
Theoretical Foundations for the Relationship Between Working Memory and Achievement
The proposed relationship between working memory and academic achievement may be
examined through information processing theory as well as neurodevelopmental and social
theories. These theories prove to demonstrate a direct relationship between working memory and

9
academic achievement. Based on the theories reviewed in this section, the relationship between
working memory and academic achievement may vary based on social developmental factors.
Information Processing Theory
Information processing theory emphasizes the assertion that cognitive activities are
critical in what is remembered (Schunk, 2018) by way of sorting information (Willoughby et al.,
2012). Working memory, inhibitory control, and attention shifting are examined as components
related to information processing because these factors compositely allow for the understanding
of information. Working memory is examined to see how an individual can “hold information in
their mind and update this information while performing some operation on it” (Willoughby et
al., 2012, p. 80). Because working memory is the place where information is stored while it is
processed for problem-solving and long-term storage for later use (Schunk, 2018), working
memory’s functionality is considered to be integral to the process of learning (Cowan, 2014). In
turn, working memory is related to success in school as demonstrated in many measures of
academic achievement (Gathercole et al., 2003).
Information processing models compare the human brain to a computer with inputs,
storage, and outputs (Mcleod, 2023a). The storage component of the information processing
model can be compared to an individual's cognitive load, or the present demand on an
individual’s information processing system (Schunk, 2018). Cognitive load theory, a related
information processing theory, accounts for the processing limitations of an individual
(DeLeeuw & Mayer, 2008; Paas & Ayres, 2014; Paas & Sweller, 2012; Schnotz & Kürschner,
2007, as cited in Schunk, 2018). There is a limit to one’s cognitive capacity, particularly working
memory, and this must be considered when determining instructional methods (Curtin & Ayaz,
2019). Instructional methods that overload the processing capacity limits of working memory

10
severely constrain student learning, and therefore academic achievement (Sweller, 2011). An
individual’s information processing system is highly correlated with academic achievement
(McIntyre, 1992).
Social Theories
This meta-analysis examines the relationship between working memory and academic
achievement for diverse samples that include a large portion of Black and Latinx students in the
United States. In Tillman’s (2002) journal article, the importance of examining Black culture, in
particular, is described. Tillman (2002) asserts that Black culture varies from EuropeanAmerican culture including “individual and collective value orientations, language patterns, and
worldviews'' as well as “share orientation based on similar cultural, historical, and political
experiences” and “a complexity of behaviors that undergird cultural distinctiveness” (p. 4)
among other qualities. Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory proposed that an individual’s culture and
social environment facilitate development and learning (Schunk, 2018) and therefore, it is worth
examining the relationship between working memory and achievement for Black and Latinx
students of color in particular.
Vygotsky (1986) proposed that an individual’s capacity for language as a cultural tool
facilitates learning and allows for self-regulation of thought and distinguishes between
perception, memory, and attention (Ezrine, 2011). Moreover, language allows for the basis of
rational thought and the transmission of information to others over time (Vygotsky, 1986).
Working memory is the mechanism by which individuals hold information at present and share it
with another individual. Additionally, it is proposed that working memory, the phonological loop
specifically, is responsible for an individual’s ability to learn new information (Ezrine, 2011).
Academic achievement is dependent upon an individual’s ability to learn new information.

11
Vygotsky asserts that an individual’s sociocultural context influences an individual’s
cognitive development and therefore, assumes cognitive functions vary across cultures and are
socio-culturally determined (Mcleod, 2023b). Importantly, sociocultural theory asserts that
individual cognition is socially mediated and then internalized by the individual (Schoor et al.,
2015). The development of executive functioning skills, such as working memory, depends on
children’s environments (Blair, 2002). For example, stress in childhood impairs brain
development and therefore executive functioning processes, such as working memory, and
stimulating environments with routine and structure enhance these skills (Blair, 2002). Goldstein
et al. (2021) found that children suffer from adversity associated with race and ethnicity and that
adverse childhood experiences are more common among Black and Latinx children and lowincome families, which leaves these groups disproportionately vulnerable. Goldstein et al. (2021)
highlight that although “race and ethnicity are not psychosocial adversities in and of themselves,
they can confer the risk to exposure to adverse childhood experiences and other traumas” (p.
1867). Moreover, these experiences associated with race and ethnicity may influence future
behaviors and cognitive activities such as resilience (Goldstein et al., 2021). Sociocultural theory
provides a framework to support the idea that cognitive activities, such as working memory, may
be learned in a social environment and transferred to an individual learner. Due to the fact that
Black and Latinx students have disproportionally adverse experiences, the varied social
environment may influence the learned cognitive activities. The relationship between an
individual’s environment and culture and working memory may then have an indirect effect on
academic achievement.
In summary, information processing theories account for the processes associated with
working memory, and neurodevelopmental and social theories account for how working memory

12
may be affected by stages of development and sociocultural contexts. An individual’s academic
achievement is dependent on their ability to process new information, thus functioning and
development of working memory is critical to student academic achievement.
The Role of Race/Ethnicity in the Relationship Between Working Memory and
Achievement
Prior research suggests that working memory is a strong predictor of academic
performance (Martí et al., 2023) and experiences related to an individual’s race may influence
one’s working memory (Akhlaghipour & Assari, 2020), and in turn, their academic achievement.
Working memory is closely related to achievement due to the fact that working memory supports
simultaneous cognitive demands of processing and storage (Gathercole & Pickering, 2000).
Working memory has also been tied to achievement as it is shown that students with reading
comprehension problems have significant deficits in working memory (Sesma et al., 2009). One
study, in particular, examined the three components of executive functioning—working memory,
inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility—and found that working memory was the strongest
predictor of academic achievement across academic disciplines, particularly for math compared
to reading (Nguyen & Duncan, 2019). This research was conducted using nationally
representative data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Class 2010–11,
which was comprised of approximately 18,000 kindergarteners. The data collection process
included parent interviews, surveys completed by teachers and school administrators, and student
assessments. To measure working memory specifically, the reserved subset of the WoodcockJohnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities (Wendling et al., 2009 as cited in Nguyen & Duncan,
2019) was used. In this test, the student is presented numbers by a researcher and the student
recites these numbers in reverse order to the researcher. This score was then normed to their age.

13
Academic achievement was measured using child assessments determined in the Early
Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Class 2010–11 completed by Tourangeau et al.
(2014 as cited in Nguyen & Duncan, 2019). This test included reading and math scores that were
both included in the data set. Ultimately, working memory was the most predictive of academic
achievement.
A study by Akhlaghipour and Assari (2020) compared working memory between Black
and White students. They found that White children with highly educated parents have the
highest working memory and Black children have lower working memory, regardless of their
parent’s education. This study was done using a cross-sectional analysis of data from the ABCD
study with brain imaging from students across the country and ultimately included 10,418
participants. Working memory was determined by students’ prior performance on the NIH
Toolbox Card Sorting test in the ABCD dataset. Akhlaghipour and Assari (2020) conclude that
the influence of an individual’s social experiences on brain development is complicated and that
these experiences are ultimately different enough between racial groups that there is a distinct
difference in working memory between racial groups. This research suggests that race related
experiences play an important role in the development of working memory. However, the
research does not examine race as an influence on the relationship between working memory and
academic achievement. Therefore, there is no reason to expect that a different conclusion would
emerge from this synthesis focused on Black and Latinx students, but it is still important to use a
critical lens on research to establish the link for specific groups to rule out the possibility of
overgeneralizing.
All of the studies in this meta-analysis include at least 40% students of color (Black
and/or Latinx), however, the exact composition of the sample varied considerably from study to

14
study. Race is examined in this study as a sociological construct, as a proxy for racism, as it was
also examined in Akhlaghipour and Assari (2020) in addition to diverse cultural elements that
are associated with Black and Latinx communities. Tillman (2002) described that Black people
have a culture that is different than White people including “value orientations language patterns
and worldviews” (p. 4) as well as “a shared orientation based on similar cultural, historical, and
political experiences” (p. 4) and should be examined specifically as there is minimal focus on
Black culture in current literature. These examples are relevant to the link between race/ethnicity
and working memory as per research by Little (2017) and Goldstein et al. (2020), which found
that shared cultural experiences influence working memory. However, there is no empirical
research found that indicates that these shared cultural experience, race, or ethnicity influences
the relationship between working memory and achievement.
Lopez (2017) asserts that failure to understand Hispanic cultural identity affects the
academic performance of this population. Hispanic cultural identities that may affect academic
achievement include tradition, relationships as important, good performance, struggle with
working English, shaming, and hunger for respect (Lopez, 2017). In addition, as cited in a prior
section, Goldstein et al. (2020) found that Black and Latinx children suffer more often from
adversity than White children, and this may in turn affect cognitive activities and development.
This is backed by Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory in that he proposed that an individual's
sociocultural context is related to their cognitive development, which includes working memory.
In sum, this research demonstrates the relationships between race, ethnicity, and working
memory as well as race, ethnicity, and achievement. However, there is no empirical research
found that supports the idea that the relationship between working memory and achievement will
vary by race and ethnicity.

15
Characteristics of the Working Memory Test Contributing to Variation in the Relationship
The method that the researchers use to prompt the participant to recite information in
their present memory may affect the relationship between working memory and academic
achievement. As defined in the Defining the Influence section, working memory consists of three
components, which are the phonological loop or verbal working memory, the visuospatial
sketchpad or nonverbal working memory, and the central executive component. The
phonological loop functions to store auditory information, the visuospatial sketchpad stores
visual and spatial information, and the central executive components monitor the two former
components (Baddeley, 1986; Baddeley & Hitch, 1974).
This synthesis includes a variety of measures as described in detail in the “Defining the
Influence” section to quantify working memory. Some of these tests prompt the participant using
visual cues, such as the Self-Ordered Pointing Task developed by Petrides and Milner (1982) and
adapted by Hongwanishkul et al. (2005) to examine working memory to be used for preschool
students. This type of test would more likely invoke the functioning of the visuospatial sketchpad
or nonverbal working memory. Other tests for working memory involve the researcher verbally
prompting the participant, such as the Numbers Reversed test by Woodcock et al. (2001) used by
Fuchs et al. (2008) and Turner (2010). In this measure of working memory, the researcher says a
series of numbers, and the student is prompted to repeat the numbers backward. This type of test
would likely trigger the functioning of the phonological loop or verbal working memory.
There are studies in this synthesis that use multiple measures of working memory that
would include tests that are meant to target both the phonological loop and the visuospatial
sketchpad (Ezrine, 2010; Harvey, 2011; Swanson, 2011b), however, other studies use only one
kind of test that will target either the phonological loop or the visuospatial sketchpad (Vitiello,

16
2009). Some of the studies in this synthesis address the individual components of working
memory in their background and analysis (Welsh et al., 2010; Willoughby et al., 2012), while
others simply examine working memory as a whole (Hannon, 2014; Vitiello, 2009). Whether or
not the research accounts for the differences in the components of working memory may affect
the strength of the correlation between working memory and academic achievement. In
particular, this synthesis examines the match of the specificity of the test matched with a specific
outcome domain.
Characteristics of the Outcome Domain Contributing to Variation in the Relationship
Empirical research described in the previous section demonstrates a relationship between
working memory and academic achievement. However, the strength of this relationship may
vary depending on the domain of the achievement measure. Working memory is more closely
correlated with math academic achievement than reading achievement (Nguyen & Duncan,
2019). Nguyen and Duncan’s (2019) longitudinal study for kindergarten and third-grade
students, which was described in the prior section, found that the relationship between working
memory and achievement was stronger for math than reading achievement for students.
However, in another study, working memory was more closely tied to achievement in literacy
than math (Gathercole et al., 2003). Gathercole et al.’s (2003) study was also longitudinal, for
students between the ages of 4 and 7 years old. The measures of academic achievement for
students were a summative yearly test with a general math section and an English section that
consisted of a reading comprehension test, writing task, and spelling test. Working memory skills
were found to be strongly correlated with writing and spelling after 2.5 years, moderately
correlated with reading comprehension, and not correlated with math achievement.

17
One possible reason these differences may be seen is due to the sample of the students in
the study. Some students may have stronger visuospatial sketchpad components or stronger
phonological loops and these possible prior differences are not accounted for by the researchers.
Research has identified the role of the visuospatial sketchpad as a critical component in math
achievement (Kyttälä et al., 2003). Math achievement requires a good understanding of spatial
relations and the ability to manipulate visual material in one’s working memory (Bull et al.,
2008). The phonological loop is critically important in one’s ability to learn new vocabulary
(Baddeley et al., 1988). Therefore, the correlation between working memory and academic
achievement may vary depending on the domain related to the measure of achievement.
Moreover, the correlation between working memory and achievement may vary based upon
whether or not the component of working memory is matched with the specific domain that is
affiliated with that component; for example, the phonological loop should be matched with
English language arts outcomes and the visuospatial sketchpad should be matched with
mathematics outcomes.
The Present Synthesis
Hattie’s (2023) meta-analysis compiled a heterogeneous assortment of constructs loosely
related to metacognition and referred to them collectively as “metacognition strategies.” That
prior synthesis found that these constructs together strongly related to student achievement. The
current synthesis examines the extent of the relationship between one of these constructs,
working memory, and academic achievement among culturally diverse samples of students in the
United States. To attain a better understanding of the effect of working memory on academic
achievement for Black and Latinx students, reports included in the working memory strength
influence from Hattie’s (2023) meta-analysis were also incorporated in this synthesis. Theories

18
related to information processing as well as sociocultural and developmental theories
demonstrate a link between working memory and academic achievement. In support of these
theories, empirical research suggests that working memory is related to student academic
achievement. The extent of the relationship between working memory and academic
achievement has yet to be determined specifically for Black and Latinx students, given that most
research and syntheses have focused on samples that are predominately White students.
This synthesis supplements the current research by fine-tuning prior syntheses to
critically examine the relationship between working memory and academic achievement for a
racially diverse sample of students. The research questions being addressed are as follows: To
what extent does working memory relate to student achievement for samples that have high
proportions of Black and Latinx students in the United States? To what extent does the
percentage of Black and Latinx students in the sample moderate the relationship between
working memory and academic achievement? Does the relationship between working memory
and achievement vary depending on the outcome domain? Does the relationship between
working memory and achievement vary depending on the match between the component of
working memory and the outcome domain? The hypothesis being tested is that racially diverse
students’ working memory will be positively related to academic achievement. I hypothesize that
the percentage of Black and Latinx students in a sample will not change the size or correlation of
the relationship between working memory and academic achievement. This is due to the fact that
although empirical research has found that environmental barriers and assets associated with
race, culture, and ethnicity may affect working memory specifically, no empirical research has
been found to support that it will affect the relationship between working memory and
achievement. Because of the inconsistent findings that have been found in regard to the domain

19
of the achievement measure, I hypothesize that the correlation between working memory and
achievement does not vary by domain when all of the working memory measures are combined.
Finally, I hypothesize that when aligning individual working memory components to
corresponding with subject-specific measures of academic achievement, there will be stronger
correlations. For example, studies that align the phonological loop to reading or writing
achievement measures as well as studies that align the visuospatial sketchpad and math
achievement will show stronger correlations than those that correlate the specific components
with a non-corresponding outcome domain.
Methods
This meta-analysis is grounded in Hattie’s (2023) original synthesis of meta-analyses. All
studies that were obtained for this synthesis were originally included in Hattie’s (2023) metaanalysis. A methodological approach consisting of a literature search and data screening was
completed to obtain data that was later analyzed for the purposes of this synthesis. Detailed
methodology is described in this section.
Literature Search
The articles included in this synthesis were all included in Hattie’s (2023) meta-analysis.
All of the meta-analyses for all of the influences examined in Hattie’s (2023) meta-analysis are
listed on the Visible Learning website. First, I located the “metacognition strategies” influence
on this website and found the list of metacognition meta-analyses used in this influence. On the
Visible Learning website, there are 12 meta-analyses listed as those included in Hattie’s (2023)
study. Ultimately, nine of the meta-analyses were included in this synthesis. One meta-analysis
by Haller et al. (1988) was located but did not provide the included studies. Instead, the author
wrote that a list of studies included in the meta-analysis can be obtained through written request.

20
However, given the age of this meta-analysis (now 35 years old), we did not attempt to request
the studies from the author. A second meta-analysis, Rontago (2011), could not be located
through the USC Library Database, Google Scholar, ProQuest, ERIC, PsycINFO, or Google. An
interlibrary loan request was sent but denied with the reason being that it is only available in
international libraries and is therefore inaccessible to us. The last meta-analysis was not included
because it was a duplicate. On the Visible Learning website, two of the meta-analyses listed,
Jacob and Parkison (2013) and Jacob and Parkison (2015), were the same article but published in
different countries, United States and Netherlands. The variables listed on the website for each
study differed; one was listed as executive functioning (Jacob & Parkinson, 2015), and the other
was learning strategies for achievement (Jacob & Parkinson, 2013). After searching for the 2013
report listed on the Visible Learning site, I could not find it. The 2013 report may be a duplicate
or an error on the website. No notation listed on the 2015 report would indicate that it is an edit
or republishing of a prior report. This screening process was also repeated for the working
memory strength influence. On the Visible Learning website, there are five meta-analyses listed
as those included in Hattie’s (2023) study, and all of them are included in this synthesis.
Next, I used the USC Library Database to locate the meta-analyses listed on the Visible
Learning website. Each meta-analysis was examined to determine the list of studies used for
synthesizing meta-cognition strategies data. A list of the studies in all meta-analyses for metacognition strategies was compiled in a Google Spreadsheet on a Google Drive folder for the
meta-cognition strategy influence. Each study was first searched for using the USC Library
Database. If it was not found in the USC Library Database, the study was also searched for using
Google Scholar, ProQuest, ERIC, and PsycINFO. When studies were not located using these

21
platforms, an Interlibrary Loan and Document Delivery Request via the USC Library was made
to find the specific article. Most of the articles were able to be located using these methods.
However, a few reports were still unable to be located with the assistance of the USC
Library. Once the article was located, it was hyperlinked in the Google Sheets document along
with recorded information regarding the influence (meta-cognition strategies), the authors, the
year of publication, and a record of whether or not a copy of the article was added to the Google
Drive folder. In a few instances, physical copies of the studies were mailed to my address from
the USC Library. The physical copies were not scanned or uploaded into Google Drive as per
guidance from the dissertation chair. The Visible Learning website states that 689 studies were
included in Hattie’s (2023) meta-analysis for this influence. However, due to reasons stated prior
regarding locating and including meta-analyses, 600 reports, or 87% of the original reports in
meta-analyses included in “Visible Learning,” were identified and screened for inclusion. Of this
total, 45 reports, 7.5%, were duplicates, meaning that they were found in more than one metaanalysis, and 30 reports, 5%, were unavailable. Examples of the unavailable studies include an
unpublished dissertation in Konya, an unpublished dissertation in Turkey, unpublished raw data
concerning epistemic cognition of Greek students, and presentations, posters, and studies that in
the title describe the population as not fitting the inclusion criteria for example, Westera and
Moore’s (1995) “Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension in a New Zealand high school.”
Interlibrary loans were requested but denied or not returned for many of the unavailable studies.
Interlibrary loan requests were not made for studies that could not be located through the above
process and would not meet the inclusion criteria given the titles. Of the 600 reports, 214, or
35.6%, clearly did not use a sample of students from the United States. Only 161, 26.8%, of
these studies included sample race and ethnicity data. Of those 161 studies, 53 met the inclusion

22
criteria for race and ethnicity described below. After fine-tuning the topic of this synthesis from
meta-cognitive strategies to working memory, 15 of the studies were included. Other constructs
that were examined in reports included one report on attention, one on child and maternal
temperament, one on classroom environment, one comparing instructional interventions, four on
cooperative learning, one on developmentally appropriate practices, one on emotional regulation,
four on epistemology, one on executive functioning, one on family adversity, three related to
inhibitory control, two related to mastery learning intervention, five on motivation, one on peerassisted learning strategies, one on peer collaboration, one on physical activity, one on selfefficacy, three on self-regulation, one on social-emotional functioning, two on social
engagement, and one on summarization interventions.
The same process to locate the 458 studies was repeated for the working memory strength
influence. Of the 458 studies, 456, or 99.5%, were located and screened for inclusion. There
were 56 repeat studies, 12.2% of the original 458, and 200 of the studies, 43.6% clearly did not
use a sample of students from the United States. Only 99, 21%, of the studies included sample
race and ethnicity criteria. However, of those 99 studies, 49 of the studies, 10.6% of the original
number of studies, and 49.5% of the studies that included race and ethnicity data were included.
Figure 1 provides a flowchart of the literature search process.

23
Figure 1
Prisma Chart
Inclusion Criteria
In the preliminary article screening, I assessed all the articles regarding their fit with the
sample inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria were that the study sample was located in the
United States and that Black and Latinx students comprised at least 40% of the sample
population. Common places to find this information were in the abstract or the methods section
of the study. If there was no information related to these criteria, the study was not included in
this synthesis. Data related to sample demographics were recorded in the Google Sheets
document including whether or not each article examined a sample within the United States, the

24
sample size, and the percentage of White, Black, Latinx, Asian, and other races included in the
population sample. Also noted were any important information regarding the sample that may be
beneficial later in the synthesis such as whether or not the authors distinguished between Black
and Latinx student populations. Of the 613 studies identified from the meta-analyses, 53 studies,
8.6%, met this criterion.
After closer examination of the articles that met these inclusion criteria, it appeared that
the variables included were a diverse assortment of constructs related to meta-cognition
strategies with some constructs being studied in a few studies once sample inclusion criteria were
applied. A second round of screening was done to determine the frequency of variables that were
examined in these studies. Working memory was the construct most often investigated in the
studies, 15 or 28.3% of the 53 studies focused on working memory, thus leading to the topic of
this synthesis. Subsequent screening for studies in Hattie’s working memory strength influence
yielded the incorporation of the remainder of the studies. In this synthesis, working memory was
defined as information held in the individual’s mind at a particular moment in time. Studies that
measured working memory with performance-based evaluations of working memory that
typically require the individual to hold increasingly complex or lengthy information in memory
were all included. Likewise, in this synthesis, studies were included if working memory was
related to a measure of achievement, operationalized as grades, grade point average, standardized
testing, and skills or knowledge tests. After the sample and construct criteria were met, all
studies included in this synthesis were correlational, which linked working memory to
achievement. There were no randomized control trials, quasi-experimental, or qualitative studies.

25
Data Extraction
Graduate researchers and I extracted a variety of information from the studies that met
the inclusion criteria. The coding guide used in this synthesis is being used as part of a broader
project to re-synthesize all of Hattie’s influences and may be reviewed in full in the appendix.
The coding guide consists of a variety of items related to the meta-analysis characteristics, report
characteristics, participant and sample characteristics, predictor influences, outcome measures,
research design, and the calculation of effect sizes. Meta-analysis characteristics include the
meta-analysis’ name. Report characteristics to be coded include the publication type, data
sources, the year the data was collected, and whether or not the report uses an overlapping
dataset. Setting characteristics that are to be coded include the location of the study by region
and school level. Participant and sample characteristics to be coded include information related
to whether the sample is analyzed overall or as a subgroup or both, percentages related to race
and ethnic groups, grade level, gender, percentage of the sample that is low-income or
economically disadvantaged, percentage of the sample that is special education, and percentage
of the population that are English language learners. Influence and predictor measures that were
coded include the influence definition in the report, how the influence is measured, the reliability
of the survey instrument used, and how the influence was manipulated by the researcher. In
addition, the specific working memory component (phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad,
central executive component) was extracted from each report. The component was specified in
each report by the researcher and/or provided in the description for how the influence was
measured. If there was no indication of the specific component of working memory measured,
overall working memory was selected. This process applied to all reports except for Lee (2014),
in which they targeted both the central executive component and the phonological loops for one

26
of their tests (four of the correlations reported). In this instance, “.99. Unclear/Missing/Not
Applicable” was reported. Outcome measures that were coded for include the outcome types,
such as state standardized tests or grade point average, outcome descriptions, the domain of the
outcome, the unit of analysis, timing of the influence, and whether it is a simultaneous or
longitudinal collection. Choices for these categories may be seen in the coding guide in the
Outcome Measures table and row numbers O-1 through O-6 located in the appendix. Research
design and effect size codes that were coded for include the sample size, the direction of the
relationship between the influence and the outcome, and the type of research design.
Correlational coefficients were collected in order to determine the Fisher’s Z, variance, and
effect size as shown in RD-3 and RD-4. The correlation coefficient was available to calculate
this information for all reports.
Coders and I were trained for several weeks preceding the commencement of coding
articles included in this meta-analysis. Training included weekly meetings in which research
supervisors who are experts in meta-analysis ensured understanding of the coding guide and
practiced coding several papers as a group and then as individuals. Once an 80% agreement rate
between graduate student coders and research supervisors was established, coders were allowed
to code independently. Following the weekly training sessions, I coded independently and other
coders validated my codes for all reports that were included in this meta-analysis. All
discrepancies were noted and resolved through discussion. Disputes were resolved with further
discussion with the dissertation chairs. All of the studies included in the synthesis were validated
and the inter-rater agreement was 96% across 70,056 codes.

27
Computing Effect Sizes
Studies in this research synthesis were correlational, with all studies measuring students’
working memory and achievement and computing the association between them. As such, we
extracted Pearson’s product moment correlations (r) from each study. We used Fisher’s Z scale
in order to stabilize the sampling distribution of the effect sizes and then back-transform Fisher’s
Z scale estimates to the scale of Pearson correlations for reporting and interpreting the results.
Analysis Strategy
We meta-analyzed correlational data using the metafor and clubSandwich R packages
(Pustejovsky, 2019; Viechtbauer, 2010). We used random-effects modeling throughout the
analyses. To account for the dependency between multiple correlations within studies and guard
against potential model misspecification, we adopted a multi-level modeling approach in
conjunction with a robust variance estimator (RVE; Pustejovsky & Tipton, 2020).
We fit a random-effects model to estimate the pooled correlation for the relationship between
working memory and achievement. We also assessed the heterogeneity among correlations,
indicated by Q, τ2, and I
2 statistics. We reported 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the weighted
average effect (Borenstein et al., 2011).
To further explain heterogeneity in the effect size estimates, we utilized mixed-effects
meta-regression models. We examined the effect of moderators in separate models. The
moderators we examined included the percentage of the sample that was Black and Hispanic, the
possible difference between outcome domains, and the impact of matching the component of
working memory to the outcome domain.

28
Finally, we examined the possibility of publication bias and funnel plot asymmetry by
conducting an Egger’s regression test (Egger et al., 1997) and examining whether publication
status is a moderator in meta-regression models.
Results
The overall average effect size was determined from a total of 45 reports, with 45 studies,
48 samples and 824 effects. Using the described methodology, the pooled correlation from the
random-effects model for the relationship between working memory and achievement was found
to be .316. The average effect between working memory and achievement was statistically
significant (p < 0.001).
Heterogeneity among correlations using the Q statistic showed that heterogeneity
between studies exceeded what we would expect by sampling error alone, Q(824) = 15167.55, p
< .0001. The tau-squared (τ2
) was 0.009 and I
2 was 86.79, suggesting that a good portion of the
variability in the effects could be attributed to between-study differences. Moderator analyses
were performed to explain these differences. Although six outlier effects from five reports
(Cirino, 2011; Gerst et al., 2017; Swanson, 2011; Jordan et al, 2013; Hansen, 2015) were found
in the analysis, these outliers are retained in this synthesis as they may be explained by
moderators.
Publication Bias
Results from the modified Egger’s regression model suggested that there was little
evidence of plot asymmetry for the correlational dataset (b = –0.3462, SE = 0.4958, t(824)= –
.6983, p = .49). The negative slope suggests that as the standard error increases, the size of the
correlation goes down. However, there was not a statistically significant relationship between the
standard error and the effect size. Likewise, the publication moderator analysis test comparing

29
published journal articles and unpublished dissertation reports indicated that the pooled
correlations did not significantly differ by publication status for achievement. Results from the
Egger’s Regression Plot are shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2
Egger’s Regression Plot

30
Moderator Analyses
To explain heterogeneity in the effect size estimates, mixed-effects meta-regression
models were performed and the effect of moderators was examined in separate models. First, a
continuous moderator analysis was completed to determine whether the percentage of Black and
Latinx students in the sample predicted a relationship between working memory and
achievement. Next, the outcome domains, mathematics and English language arts, were
compared to determine correlations varied depending on the outcome domain. Finally, I
examined whether the match between the working memory component and outcome domain
explained variation in the relationship between working memory and achievement. Results of
these analyses are shown in Table 1.

31
Table 1
Moderator Analysis Summary
Moderator
N
(studies)
N
(sample)
N
(effect sizes) b(SE) r
95% CI
Low/high
% Black and Latinx
Sample 45 47 824
–0.003
(0.0008)** - -
Achievement outcome domain
Math 34 33 388 -– .303*** .27/ .34
ELA 45 47 369
–0.01
(0.01) .312*** .27/.35
Match of WM to outcome type
Match 22 22 193 – .324 *** .29/.36
Mismatch 18 18 121
0.021
(0.0149) .306 *** .27/.34
Publication status
Published 36 37 758 – 0.277*** .19/.36
Unpublished 9 11 66
0.037
(0.04) .311*** .27/.35
*p < .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001
Percentage of Black and Latinx Students in the Sample as a Moderator
The moderator analysis for the percentage of Black and Latinx students in the sample
indicated that as the percentage of Black and Latinx increased, the correlation between working
memory and achievement statistically significantly decreased, b = –0.003, SE = 0.0008, p =
0.00419. This means that the correlation between working memory and achievement is weaker

32
for samples with a greater proportion of Black and Latinx students. This analysis included 45
reports and 824 Pearson’s product moment correlations (r).
Mathematics and English Language Arts Outcomes Moderating the Relationship
Analyses were performed to determine how mathematics and English language arts
(ELA) as outcome variables moderated the relationship between working memory and
achievement. This included 45 reports and 813 Pearson’s product moment correlations (r).
Reports that tested for other outcome domains, including general academics, or “other” domains,
were excluded from this moderator analysis because the majority of the studies included in this
meta-analysis examined outcomes in these domains; specifically, 813 of 824 effect sizes were
either mathematics or ELA, 12 of the effect sizes were general academics, and 55 of the effect
sizes were categorized as “other.” This moderator analysis included data from 45 reports and 813
Pearson’s product moment correlations (r).
This analysis indicated no statistically significant difference in the relationship across the
outcome domains, b = –.01, SE = 0.01, p = .36, 95% CI [–.032/0.012]. The correlation between
working memory and achievement was statistically significant for both math (r = 0.303, 95% CI
[.0.27/ 0.34]) and ELA (r = 0.312, 95% CI [0.27/ 0.35]).
The Match Between Working Memory Component and Outcome Domain as a Moderator
An analysis was performed to determine the effect the match of the working memory
component and outcome domain had on achievement. To do this, an additional variable was
added to designate whether the working memory component and outcome domain matched with
corresponding subject-specific measures of academic achievement. Tests that measured the
phonological loop were considered “matched” when aligned with English language arts
outcomes. This included 99 Pearson’s product moment correlations (r). Tests that measured the

33
phonological loop but aligned with mathematics outcomes were considered “unmatched.” This
included 72 Pearson’s product moment correlations (r). Tests that measured the visuospatial
sketchpad were considered “matched” when aligned with math outcomes, which were 94 effect
sizes. Tests that measured the visuospatial sketchpad were considered “unmatched” when
aligned with English language arts outcomes. This included 49 Pearson’s product moment
correlations (r). Tests that measured the central executive component of working memory were
not included in this moderator analysis due to its function as monitoring and controlling the
phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad. Therefore, the central executive component would
not necessarily match with mathematics or English language arts outcomes. This included 190
Pearson’s product moment correlations (r). Tests that aligned the phonological loop or
visuospatial sketchpad with a domain other than math or ELA were excluded from this analysis.
This included 13 Pearson’s product moment correlations (r). Reports in which the component of
working memory was not clear were also excluded from this analysis. This included five
Pearson’s product moment correlations (r). Finally, tests that measured working memory
generally were also excluded from this moderator analysis. This included 302 Pearson’s product
moment correlations (r).
This analysis indicated no statistically significant difference in the relationship between
the matching and unmatched categories, b = 0.021, SE = 0.0149, p = 0.178, 95% CI [–
0.01/0.05]. However, the correlation between working memory and achievement was statistically
significant for both matching (r = 0.324, 95% CI [.29/0.36]) and mismatching (r = 0.306, 95%
CI [.27/.34]).

34
Summary of Key Findings
Working memory is statistically significantly related to student achievement for samples
that have high proportions of Black and Latinx students in the United States. This confirms the
hypothesis that racially diverse students’ working memory will be positively related to academic
achievement. However, as the percentage of Black and Latinx students in the sample increased,
the correlation between working memory and achievement statistically significantly decreased.
In this case, the hypothesis that the percentage of Black and Latinx students in a sample will not
change the size or correlation of the relationship between working memory and academic
achievement is rejected. As hypothesized, the relationship between working memory and
achievement did not vary depending on the outcome domain, however, there were still
significant relationships between working memory and achievement in both the ELA and
mathematics outcomes. Finally, the relationship between working memory and achievement does
not significantly vary depending on the match between the component of working memory and
the outcome domain. When individual working memory components were examined in relation
to the corresponding subject-specific measures of academic achievement, there was no
significant difference between matched and mismatched components. For example, studies that
aligned the phonological loop to reading or writing achievement measures, as well as studies that
aligned the visuospatial sketchpad and math achievement, were not significantly different than
those that correlated the specific components with a non-corresponding outcome domain.
Alignment of Key Findings With Prior Research and Theory
The finding that working memory is related to academic achievement is consistent with
prior research. Working memory has been tied to academic achievement as it is shown that
students who have poor academic performance have significant deficits in working memory

35
(McIntyre, 1992; Sesma et al., 2009 as cited in Martí et al., 2023). This finding is also consistent
with information processing theory in the way that cognitive activities are critical in what is
remembered, integral to the process of learning, and then demonstrated in academic
achievement.
Interestingly, the relationship between working memory and achievement decreased as
the proportion of Black and Latinx students increased. One possible reason for this may be that
the relationship between the individual’s cultural background and working memory has an
indirect effect on academic achievement. Prior research indicates that environmental barriers and
assets that are associated with race, culture, and ethnicity play an important role in the
development of working memory (Akhlaghipour & Assari, 2020). However, prior research does
not examine race related experiences associated with the relationship between working memory
and academic achievement. Race is seen in other research as a proxy for racism to better
understand the shared experiences that minority groups experience (Lett et al., 2022). For
marginalized groups, parts of this shared experience include shared oppression (Lett et al., 2022)
and adversity which may lead to an increased exposure of adverse childhood experiences
(Goldstein et al., 2010). For example, race related experiences such as dialect switching have
been found to affect cognitive load, which impacts success in verbally mediated tasks (Terry et
al., 2010). Additional research has found that demonstrates how stereotype threat experienced by
Latinx participants reduces working memory capacity (Schmader & Johns, 2003). Vygotsky’s
sociocultural theory asserts that sociocultural contexts influence an individual’s cognitive
development and that individual cognitive development is socially constructed (Mcleod, 2023b;
Schoor et al., 2015). Therefore, developing executive functioning skills, such as working
memory is related to children’s environments (Blair, 2002). Because Black and Latinx students

36
have disproportionately adverse experiences, the varied social environment may influence
working memory. The relationship between working memory and achievement is likely weaker
because other sociocultural factors are playing a larger role in predicting achievement for Black
and Latinx students compared to White students. Consequently, academic achievement is
indirectly related to race related experiences.
Another possible reason for this may be the measures for working memory and
achievement are biased and do not account for construct-irrelevant variance as described by Zhai
et al. (2021). Many of the tests that were used by researchers in this synthesis which measure
working memory and achievement were created almost twenty years ago or more. Examples of
possibly outdated working memory tests are The Test of Computational Fluency (Fuchs et al.,
2000 as cited in Swanson & Kim, 2007), Mathematical Word Problem-Solving Components
(Swanson & Sachse-Lee, 2001 as cited in Swanson, 2006b), Woodcock Diagnostic Reading
Battery Listening Comprehension (Woodcock, 1997 as cited in Fuchs, 2006), Wechsler
Abbreviated Scale Intelligence (Psychological Corporation, 1999 as cited in Tighe, 2015),
Listening Span (Gaulin & Campbell, 1994 as cited in Tighe, 2015), Swanson Cognitive
Processing Test Visual Matrix subtest (Swanson,1996 as cited in Vukovic, 2013), the Forward
and Backward Digit Span task (Wechsler, 1991 as cited in Fuchs, 2006). Conceptual Span
(Swanson, 1992, 1995 as cited in Swanson, 2008), and the Counting Recall subtest of the
Working Memory Test Battery for Children (WMTB-C; Pickering & Gathercole, 2001 as cited
in Fuchs, 2013). The instruments used to measure working memory and achievement may not
account for diverse cultural elements that are associated with Black and Latinx communities.
Therefore, these tests may not accurately measure the constructs of interest, working memory,
and academic achievement.

37
As predicted, the relationship between working memory was not significantly different
between mathematics and ELA. Prior research indicates that working memory is more closely
related to mathematics than to ELA (Ngyugen & Duncan, 2019). While this may still be the case,
the results from this synthesis indicate that there is no significant difference between the outcome
domains. Both mathematics and ELA domain outcome moderators were statistically significant
independently.
Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference between the groupings of
matched and mismatched components of working memory and affiliated outcome domains,
however, both groupings were statistically significant independently. Prior research indicates that
the phonological loop functions to store auditory information, which is key in one's ability to
learn new vocabulary and is affiliated with ELA outcomes (Baddeley et al., 1988). The
visuospatial sketchpad stores visual and spatial information which is a critical component in
math achievement (Kyttälä et al., 2003). The results that suggest that matching does not matter
may be explained by the proposed functioning of the executive component. Prior research
indicates that the executive component of working memory monitors and controls the
visuospatial sketchpad and the phonological loop (Baddeley, 1986; Baddeley & Hitch, 1974). It
is possible that regardless of the content area, the executive component is coordinating cognitive
processes effectively enough that there is not a significant difference between the matching or
mismatching of working memory components and academic achievement outcome domains.
The studies included in this synthesis are derived from Hattie’s (2023) synthesis,
specifically from the metacognition strategies and working memory strength influences. The
effect sizes that Hattie (2023) found for metacognition strategies and working memory strength
were 0.60 and 0.68, respectively. These findings indicate that metacognition strategies and

38
working memory strength have the potential to considerably support student achievement.
According to Hattie’s (2023) barometer of influence, the overall effect size for working memory
in this synthesis being lower than .4, would not be an influence considered to accelerate student
learning. The moderator for percent of the sample that is Black and Latinx aligns with the lower
correlation for the total sample relative to Hattie (2023).
Implications for Practice
This synthesis supports prior research findings that working memory is correlated to
academic achievement regardless of the outcome domain or the matching of the working
memory component to the outcome domain. This information may be valuable to educators so
that they may integrate working memory interventions into their curricula. Working memory
interventions have been shown to be effective in improving academic performance across age
groups with no baseline differences for math and reading outcomes (Söderqvist & Bergman
Nutley, 2015).
Enhanced working memory may support learners in improving their academic outcomes.
Research indicates that working memory interventions improve performance on trained tasks as
well as performance in domains that are not directly being trained (Titz & Karbach, 2014).
Improved academic performance has been found in neurotypical and neurodivergent students
(Holmes et al., 2009). Working memory training tasks such as Cogmed, Jungle Memory, and
Braintwister target storage as well as processing demands that depend on a variety of executive
control processes (Titz & Karbach, 2014). Söderqvist and Nutley (2015) found that Cogmed
Working Memory Training interventions embedded within curriculum improve academic
performance for students over the course of 2 years. The finding that working memory

39
interventions in schools are effective to improve performance is consistent across other studies
found (Holmes & Gathercole, 2013; Karbach et al., 2014; Loosi et al., 2011).
The finding that the relationship between working memory and achievement decreased as
the proportion of Black and Latinx students increased informs practice or professionals in the
way that it confirms another way that race-related experiences impact student outcomes, whether
this be directly or indirectly. It is also critical that teachers, administrators, and other
professionals related to test creation and implementation critically examine testing materials and
protocols to be culturally responsive.
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
There are limitations in this meta-analysis. To begin, only studies included in Hattie’s
meta-analysis (2023) are included in this analysis. This limits the number of studies that may
have been screened for the inclusion criteria. Countless other studies may address working
memory and achievement that were not included in this meta-analysis. Additionally, there were
45 reports screened that were conducted in the United States that did not have sample
information included and were therefore excluded from the analysis. This excluded data may or
may not have impacted the results of this meta-analysis. Moreover, concerning the included
sample, this meta-analysis excludes other minority populations. This limits the understanding of
how working memory may be correlated to achievement for other minority populations. An
additional limitation in this synthesis is the fact that this data set includes only correlational data
and no randomized control trials nor quasi-experimental studies, therefore, a causal relationship
may not be created between variables examined.
In the future, it is recommended that other studies beyond Hattie’s meta-analysis be
considered and screened to better understand the relationship between working memory and

40
achievement. Additionally, the effect of working memory on achievement for other minority
populations should be screened for and assessed to not overgeneralize Black and Latinx
individuals to represent all minority populations. Finally, as previously stated, the possible
construct-irrelevance variance in working memory and achievement tests may threaten the
validity of these outcome measures and future research should examine the instruments used for
culturally responsiveness.
Conclusions
Regardless of the outcome domain or matching of the working memory subcomponent to
the affiliated outcome domain, there is a statistically significant relationship between working
memory and achievement. These findings are supported by current theory and are consistent with
prior research. This study is the first to examine how race moderates the relationship between
working memory and achievement. A weaker relationship between working memory and
achievement was for populations with a higher percentage of Black and Latinx populations. This
finding may be explained by sociocultural theory and construct-irrelevant variance. Future
research related to Hattie’s synthesis may consider examining the tests used to measure given
influences specifically and how these may affect the overall relationship between given
influences and academic achievement. Future studies on working memory and achievement may
be done to include other minority groups as well as studies beyond those in Hattie’s (2023) metaanalysis.

41
References
Akhlaghipour, G., & Assari, S. (2020). Parental Education, Household Income, Race, and
Children's Working Memory: Complexity of the Effects. Brain Sciences, 10(12), 950.
https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10120950
Atkinson, R., & Shiffrin, R. (1968). Human Memory: A Proposed System and its Control
Processes. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2, 89–195.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60422-3
Baddeley, A. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and
motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). Academic Press.
Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A. (1988). When long-term learning depends on short-term storage. Journal of
Memory and Language, 27 (5), 586–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(88)90028-9
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01538-2
Baddeley, A. (2002). Is working memory still working? European Psychologist, 7 (2), 85–97.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.7.2.85
Baddeley, A. (2010). Working memory. Current Biology, 20 (4), R136–R140.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.12.014
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of
learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). Academic
Press.
Baddeley, A. D., & Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple-component model. In
A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active

42
maintenance and executive control (pp. 28–61). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174909.005
Bedyńska, S., Krejtz, I., Rycielski, P., et al. (2020). Stereotype threat as an antecedent to domain
identification and achievement in language arts in boys: A cross-sectional study. Social
Psychology of Education, 23, 755–771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09557-z
Blair C. (2002). School readiness. Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological
conceptualization of children's functioning at school entry. The American
psychologist, 57(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.57.2.111
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2011). Introduction to metaanalysis. John Wiley & Sons.
Bull, R., Espy, K. A., & Wiebe, S. A. (2008). Short-term memory, working memory, and
executive functioning in preschoolers: longitudinal predictors of mathematical
achievement at age 7 years. Developmental neuropsychology, 33(3), 205–228.
https://doi.org/10.1080/87565640801982312
Burchinal, M., Vernon-Feagans, L., Vitiello, V., & Greenberg, M. (2014). Thresholds in the
association between child care quality and child outcomes in rural preschool children.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 41–51.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.09.004
Chick, N. (2013). Metacognition. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved March
26, 2024, from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/metacognition/
Cirino, P. T. (2011). The interrelationships of mathematical precursors in kindergarten. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 108(4), 713–733.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.11.004

43
Curtin, A., & Ayaz, H. (2019). Neural Efficiency Metrics in Neuroergonomics: Theory and
Applications. Neuroergonomics (pp. 133–140). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
811926-6.00022-1
Corbo, M. N. (2012). Measuring behavioral regulation and its relation to early language skills
and teacher-rated behavior in a culturally diverse school district (Doctoral dissertation,
Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 73(12),
3518898).
Cowan, N. (2014). Working Memory Underpins Cognitive Development, Learning, and
Education. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-
013-9246-y
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by
a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315, 629. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
Ezrine, G. A. (2010). Effects of language on the development of executive functions in preschool
children (Doctoral dissertation, Dissertation Abstracts International, Section B: The
Sciences and Engineering, 71(12), 3431697).
Follmer, D. J. (2018). Executive function and reading comprehension: A meta-analytic review.
Educational Psychologist, 53, 42–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1309295
Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K., Bryant, J. D., & Hamlett, C. L. (2005). The
prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 97, 493–513. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97
Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Powell, S. R., Schumacher, R. F., Hamlett, C. L.,
Vukovic, R. K. (2012). Contributions of domain general cognitive resources and different

44
forms of arithmetic development to pre-algebraic knowledge. Developmental Psychology,
48, 1315–1326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027475
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Hamlett, C. L., & Wang, A. Y. (2015). Is word-problem
solving a form of text comprehension? Scientific Studies of Reading, 19, 204–223.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 10888438.2015.1005745
Fuchs, L. S., Geary, D. C., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Bryant, J. D. (2010b).
The contributions of numerosity and domain-general abilities to school readiness. Child
Development, 81, 1520–1533. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01489.x
Fuchs, L. S., Geary, D. C., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Seethaler, P. M., Bryant,
J. D., & Schatschneider, C. (2010a). Do Different Types of School Mathematics
Development Depend on Different Constellations of Numerical versus General Cognitive
Abilities? Developmental Psychology, 46(6), 1731. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020662
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Stuebing, K., Fletcher, J. M., Hamlett, C. L., & Lambert, W. (2008).
Problem solving and computational skill: Are they shared or distinct aspects of
mathematical cognition? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 30–47.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.30
Fuchs, L. S., Schumacher, R. F., Long, J., Namkung, J., Hamlett, C. L., Cirino, P. T., Changas,
P. (2013). Improving at-risk learners’ understanding of fractions. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 105, 683–700. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032446
Fuchs, L. S., Geary, D. C., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., & Hamlett, C. L. (2014). Sources of
individual differences in emerging competence with numeration understanding versus
multidigit calculation skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 482–498.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0034444

45
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Capizzi, A. M.,
Fletcher, J. M. (2006). The cognitive correlates of third-grade skill in arithmetic,
algorithmic computation, and arithmetic word problems. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98, 29–43. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.29
Fuhs, M. W., Farran, D. C., & Nesbitt, K. T. (2015). Prekindergarten children’s executive
functioning skills and achievement gains: The utility of direct assessments and teacher
ratings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 207–221.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037366
Gathercole, S. E., & Pickering, S. J. (2000). Working memory deficits in children with low
achievements in the national curriculum at 7 years of age. The British journal of
educational psychology, 70 (Pt 2), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709900158047
Gathercole, S. E., Brown, L., & Pickering, S. J. (2003). Working memory assessments at school
entry as longitudinal predictors of National Curriculum attainment levels. Educational
and Child Psychology, 20, 109–122.
Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Ambridge, B., & Wearing, H. (2004). The Structure of
Working Memory From 4 to 15 Years of Age. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 177–
190. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.177
Gerst, E. H., Cirino, P. T., Fletcher, J. M., and Yoshida, H. (2017). Cognitive and behavioral
rating measures of executive function as predictors of academic outcomes in children.
Child Neuropsychology, 23, 381–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2015.1120860
Ghiasvand, M. Y. (2010). Relationship between learning strategies and academic achievement;
based on information processing approach. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5,
1033–1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.231

46
Gioia, G. Isquith, P., Guy, S. & Kenworthy, L. (2000). TEST REVIEW Behavior Rating
Inventory of Executive Function. Child Neuropsychology, 6(3), 235–238.
https://doi.org/10.1076/chin.6.3.235.3152
Goldstein, E., Topitzes, J., Miller-Cribbs, J., & Brown, R. L. (2021). Influence of race/ethnicity
and income on the link between adverse childhood experiences and child flourishing.
Pediatric Research, 89(7), 1861–1869. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-020-01188-6
Hannon, B. (2014). Predicting college success: The relative contributions of five
social/personality factors, five cognitive/learning factors and SAT scores. Journal of
Education and Training Studies, 2, 46–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.11114/jets.v2i4.451
Hansen, N. M. (2015). Development of fraction knowledge: A longitudinal study from third
through sixth grade (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieval from ProQuest Dissertation.
(Accession No. 3718335)
Harvey, H. A. (2011). Executive function development and early mathematics: Examination of
dual language learners (Doctoral dissertation, Dissertation Abstracts International,
Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 73(1), 3478234).
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning. Routledge.
Hecht, S. A., Close, L., & Santisi, M. (2003). Sources of individual differences in fraction skills.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 86, 277–302.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2003.08.003
Hecht, S. A., & Vagi, K. J. (2010). Sources of group and individual differences in emerging
fraction skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 843–859.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019824

47
Henry, L., & Winfield, J. (2010). Working memory and educational achievement in children
with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 54(4), 354-365.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01264.x
Holmes, J., Gathercole, S. E., & Dunning, D. L. (2009). Adaptive training leads to sustained
enhancement of poor working memory in children. Developmental science, 12(4), F9–
F15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00848.x
Holmes, J., & Gathercole, S. E. (2014). Taking working memory training from the laboratory
into schools. Educational Psychology, 34(4), 440–450.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.797338
Jacob, R., & Parkinson, J. (2015). The potential for school-based interventions that target
executive function to improve academic achievement: A review. Review of Educational
Research, 85, 512–552. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314561338
Jordan, N. C., Hansen, N., Fuchs, L. S., Siegler, R. S., Gersten, R., & Micklos, D. (2013).
Developmental predictors of fraction concepts and procedures. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 116, 45–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.02.001
Karbach, J., Strobach, T., & Schubert, T. (2015). Adaptive working-memory training benefits
reading, but not mathematics in middle childhood. Child Neuropsychology, 21(3), 285-
301. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2014.899336
Kyttälä, Minna & Aunio, Pirjo & Letho, J.E. & Luit, J.E.H. & Hautamäki, Jarkko. (2003).
Visuospatial working memory and early numeracy. Education Child Psychology, 20.
10.53841/bpsecp.2003.20.3.65.

48
Keeler, M. L., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). Does strategy knowledge influence working memory in
children with mathematical disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 418–434.
http://dx.doi.org/10 .1177/002221940103400504
Kulesz, P. A. (2014). The effects of reader characteristics, text features, and comprehension
processes on reading comprehension (Doctoral dissertation). University of Houston.
Laing, S. P., & Kamhi, A. G. (2002). The use of think-aloud protocols to compare inferencing
abilities in average and below-average readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 437–
447. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1177/00222194020350050401
Lanfranchi, S., & Swanson, H. L. (2005). Short-term memory and working memory in children
as a function of language-specific knowledge in English and Spanish. Learning and
Individual Differences, 15, 299–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2005.05.003
Lee, S. E. (2014). The impact of working memory training on third-grade students’ reading
fluency and reading comprehension performance (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest
Dissertation. (Accession No. 3684696)
Lett, E., Asabor, E., Beltrán, S., Cannon, A. M., & Arah, O. A. (2022). Conceptualizing,
Contextualizing, and Operationalizing Race in Quantitative Health Sciences Research.
Annals of Family Medicine, 20(2), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2792
Lewis, E. E., Dozier, M., Ackerman, J., & Sepulveda-Kozakowski, S. (2007). The effect of
placement instability on adopted children's inhibitory control abilities and oppositional
behavior. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1415–1427. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-
1649.43.6.1415

49
Loosli, S. V., Buschkuehl, M., Perrig, W. J., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2012). Working memory training
improves reading processes in typically developing children. Child Neuropsychology,
18(1), 62–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2011.575772
López, R. (2017). Case study: Student culture-identity and student learning experiences among
first-generation Hispanic immigrant students (Order No. 10634318). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1964255760).
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/casestudy-student-culture-identity-learning/docview/1964255760/se-2
Martí, G. P., Sidera, F., Morera, F. S., & Sellabona, E. S. (2023). Executive functions are
important for academic achievement, but emotional intelligence too. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12907
McIntyre, S. (2014). Lecture notetaking, information-processing, and academic achievement.
Taylor and Francis.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10790195.1992.10849993
Mcleod, S. (2023a). Information processing theory in psychology. Simply Psychology.
https://simplypsychology.org/information-processing.html
Mcleod, S. (2023b). Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of cognitive development. Simply
Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html
Miller-Cotto, D., & Byrnes, J. P. (2019). What's the best way to characterize the relationship
between working memory and achievement? An initial examination of competing
theories. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000395

50
Nguyen, T., & Duncan, G. J. (2019). Kindergarten components of executive function and thirdgrade achievement: A national study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46, 49–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.05.006
Peng, P., & Kievit, R. A. (2020). The Development of Academic Achievement and Cognitive
Abilities: A Bidirectional Perspective. Child Development Perspectives, 14, 15–20.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12352
Peng, P., Barnes, M., Wang, C., Wang, W., Li, S., Swanson, H. L., Tao, S. (2018). A metaanalysis on the relation between reading and working memory. Psychological Bulletin,
144, 48–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000124
Pustejovsky, J. E., & Rodgers, M. A. (2019). Testing for funnel plot asymmetry of standardized
mean differences. Research Synthesis Methods, 10(1), 57–
71. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1332
Raschke, V. R. (2013). Processes underlying syntactic control: Evaluating linguistically diverse
children (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertation. (Accession No. 3566565)
Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., & Jankowski, J. J. (2011). Modeling a cascade of effects: The role of
speed and executive functioning in preterm/fullterm differences in academic
achievement. Developmental Science, 14, 1161–1175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
7687.2011.01068.x
Sanchez, E. (2007). Working memory cross-modal binding and decoding ability in children in
the first and second grades (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertation. (Accession
No. 3280029)

51
Seethaler, P. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). The cognitive correlates of computational estimation
skill among third-grade students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 233–
243. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00220.x
Sesma, H. W., Mahone, E. M., Levine, T., Eason, S. H., & Cutting, L. E. (2009). The
contribution of executive skills to reading comprehension. Child neuropsychology, 15(3),
232–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297040802220029
Schoor, C., Narciss, S., & Koerndle, H. (2015). Regulation During Cooperative and
Collaborative Learning: A Theory-Based Review of Terms and Concepts. Educational
Psychologist, 50, 97–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540
Schmader, T., & Johns, M. (2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working
memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 440–
452. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.440
Söderqvist, S., & Bergman Nutley, S. (2015). Working Memory Training is Associated with
Long Term Attainments in Math and Reading. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 159310.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01711
Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., & Khoury, C. R. (2018). The effectiveness of direct
instruction curricula: A meta-analysis of a half-century of research. Review of
Educational Research, 88, 479–507. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317751919
Swanson, H. L. (2006a). Cognitive processes that underlie mathematical precociousness in
young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93, 239–264.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.09.006

52
Swanson, H. L. (2006b). Cross-sectional and incremental changes in working memory and
mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 265–281.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663 .98.2.265
Swanson, H. L., Sáez, L., & Gerber, M. (2006). Growth in literacy and cognition in bilingual
children at risk or not at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology,
98, 247–264. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.247
Swanson, H. L. (2008). Working memory and intelligence in children: What develops? Journal
of Educational Psychology, 100, 581–602. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.100.3.581
Swanson, H. L. (2011a). Intellectual growth in children as a function of domain-specific and
domain-general working memory subgroups. Intelligence, 39, 481—492.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2011.10.0
Swanson, H. L. (2011b). Working memory, attention, and mathematical problem-solving: A
longitudinal study of elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology,
103, 821–837. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0
Swanson, H. L. (2015). Growth in working memory and inhibition predicts literacy in English
language learners: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Memory, 23, 748–773.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 09658211.2014.927504
Swanson, H. L., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. (2004). The relationship between working memory
and mathematical problem-solving in children at risk and not at risk for serious math
difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 471–491.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.471

53
Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 55, 37–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8
Terry, J., Hendrick, R., Evangelou, E., & Smith, R. (2010). Variable dialect switching among
African American children: Inferences about working memory. Lingua, 120(10), 2463–
2475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.04.013
Tighe, E. L., Wagner, R. K., & Schatschneider, C. (2015). Applying a multiple group causal
indicator modeling framework to the reading comprehension skills of third, seventh, and
tenth grade students. Reading and Writing, 28, 439–466.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014- 9532-1
Tillman, L. C. (2002). Culturally sensitive research approaches: An African-American
perspective. Educational Researcher, 31(9), 3–12.
Titz, C., Karbach, J. (2014). Working memory and executive functions: effects of training on
academic achievement. Psychological Research, 78, 852–868.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-013-0537-1
Turner, K. A. (2010). Understanding Socioeconomic Differences in Kindergarteners’ School
Success: The Influence of Executive Function and Strategic Memory. (Doctoral
dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3425934)).
van der Maas, H. L. J., Dolan, C. V., Grasman, R. P. P. P., Wicherts, J. M., Huizenga, H. M., &
Raijmakers, M. E. J. (2006). A dynamical model of general intelligence: The positive
manifold of intelligence by mutualism. Psychological Review, 113, 842–861.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.842
Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package. Journal of
Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03

54
Vitiello, V. E. (2009). Executive Functions and Approaches to Learning: Relationships to School
Readiness in Head Start Preschoolers.
http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/oa_dissertations/469/
Vukovic, R. K., Kieffer, M. J., Bailey, S. P., & Harari, R. R. (2013). Mathematics anxiety in
young children: Concurrent and longitudinal associations with mathematical
performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 1–10.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.09.001
Vukovic, R. K., & Lesaux, N. K. (2013). The language of mathematics: Investigating the ways
language counts for children’s mathematical development. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 115, 227–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.02.002
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language. Harvard University Press.
Waber, D. P., Gerber, E. B., Turcios, V. Y., Wagner, E. R., & Forbes, P. W. (2006). Executive
functions and performance on high-stakes testing in children from urban schools.
Developmental neuropsychology, 29(3), 459–477.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326942dn2903_5
Welsh, J. A., Nix, R. L., Blair, C., Bierman, K. L., & Nelson, K. E. (2010). The development of
cognitive skills and gains in academic school readiness for children from low-income
families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 43–53.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016738
Willoughby, M. T., Blair, C. B., Wirth, R. J., & Greenberg, M. (2012). The measurement of
executive function at age 5: Psychometric properties and relationship to academic
achievement. Psychological Assessment, 24, 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025361

55
Zhai, X., Haudek, K. C., Wilson, C., & Stuhlsatz, M. (2021). A Framework of ConstructIrrelevant Variance for Contextualized Constructed Response Assessment. Frontiers in
Education, 6, 751283. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.751283
Zheng, X., Swanson, H. L., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2011). Working memory components as
predictors of children's mathematical word problem-solving. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 110, 481

56
Appendix A: Coding Guide
Report characteristics
R-1 Report ID __ __ __ (pre-assigned)
R-2 Author's last name ________________
R-3 Year __ __ __ __
R-4 Title ________________
R-5 APA reference ________________
R-6 Publication type
1. Journal article
2. Book or book chapter
3. Dissertation
4. Master’s thesis
5. Policy report
6. Government report
7. Conference paper
8. Other
–99. Can’t tell
R-7 Data sources
1. Independent Study
2. Regional/National data set
3. Other
–99. Can’t tell
Setting characteristics
S-1 Study number
0. Single study
1. Study 1
2. Study 2
3. Study 3
etc.
S-2 School level
1. Preschool
2. Elementary school: K–5
3. Middle school: 6–8
4. High school: 9–12
5. Undergraduate
6. Graduate school
7. Other (Specify)
–99. Can’t tell
S-3 Location [State]

57
Participant and sample characteristics
P-1 Sample
0. Overall sample
1. Subgroup
P-2 Subgroup overlap
0. No
1. Yes
–99. N/A
P-3 Sample size (at start) ___
P-4 Sample characteristics
1. Sample at start
2. Analysis sample
3. Both, but they are the same
4. Both, and they are not the same
5. Neither
–99. Can't tell/Not applicable
P-5 % White ___
P-6 % Black ___
P-7 % Latinx ___
P-8 % Asian or Pacific Islander ___
P-9 % Native American or American Indian ___
P-10 % Other ___
P-11 Grade level
–1. Preschool 8. Grade 8
0. Kindergarten 9. Grade 9
1. Grade 1 10. Grade 10
2. Grade 2 11. Grade 11
3. Grade 3 12. Grade 12
4. Grade 4 13. Undergraduate
5. Grade 5 14. Graduate
6. Grade 6 15. Other (Specify)
7. Grade 7 –99. Can’t tell
P-12 % Female ___

58
P-13 % Low income / Economically disadvantaged ___
P-14% Special education ___
P-15 % English learner ___
Predictor influence
I-1 Report's name for influence ________________
I-2 Influence definition ________________
I-3 How is the influence measured? ________________
WM- 1 Does the measurement of working memory
explicitly target the phonological loop, the visuospatial
sketchpad, or working memory generally?
1. Phonological loop
2. Visuospatial sketchpad
3. Central executive
4. Overall working memory
–99. Unclear/missing/not applicable
I-4 Reliability
0. No
1. Yes
–99. Unsure, N/A
I-5 Alpha coefficient ___
I-6 How is the influence manipulated by the researcher? ________________
Outcome Measures
O-1 Outcome type
1. State standardized tests (state-wide
testing)
2. National standardized tests
(SAT/ACT/NAEP/PISA/TIMSS)
3. Grade point average
4. Knowledge diagnostic test (e.g.,
researcher/instructor developed test)
5. Other achievement
O-2 Outcome name ________________
O-3 Outcome description ________________

59
O-4 Domain of outcome
1. Mathematics
2. English language arts
3. Science
4. Social science
5. General academics
6. Other (specify)
O-5 What is the unit of analysis?
1. Student
2. Teacher
3. Classroom
4. School
5. Other (Specify)
–99. Unsure/Not applicable
O-6 Timing of influence & outcome measure collection
1. Simultaneously
2. Longitudinally
–99. Unsure
Research Design & Effect Sizes
RD-1 Sample size (for relationship/effect) ___
RD-2 Direction of relationship between influence and
outcome
0. Null/No relationship
1. Positive
2. Negative
3. Mixed
–99. Unclear
RD-3 What is the correlation coefficient? ___
RD-4 What Fisher’s Z? ___

60
Appendix B: Table of Characteristics Report
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Burchinal, M. et
al., 2014
Published 43 Overall working
memory
– ELA 849 0.26
Burchinal, M. et
al., 2014
Published 43 Overall working
memory
– ELA 849 0.09
Burchinal, M. et
al., 2014
Published 43 Overall working
memory
– ELA 849 0.17
Burchinal, M. et
al., 2014
Published 43 Overall working
memory
– Math 849 0.22
Cirino, P. T.,
2011
Published 92.66 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 286 0.35
Cirino, P. T.,
2011
Published 92.66 Visuospatial
Sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 286 0.35
Cirino, P. T.,
2011
Published 92.66 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 286 0.45
Cirino, P. T.,
2011
Published 92.66 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 286 0.49
Cirino, P. T.,
2011
Published 92.66 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 286 0.44
Cirino, P. T.,
2011
Published 92.66 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 286 –0.72
Cirino, P. T.,
2011
Published 92.66 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 286 0.42
Cirino, P. T.,
2011
Published 92.66 Visuospatial
sketchpad
– Other 286 0.27
Ezrine, G. A.,
2010
Unpublished 41 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 39 0.23

61
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Ezrine, G. A.,
2010
Unpublished 41 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 39 0.33
Ezrine, G. A.,
2010
Unpublished 41 Phonological loop Match ELA 39 0.41
Ezrine, G. A.,
2010
Unpublished 41 Phonological loop Match ELA 39 0.48
Ezrine, G. A.,
2010
Unpublished 41 Phonological loop – Other 39 0.4
Ezrine, G. A.,
2010
Unpublished 41 Visuospatial
sketchpad
– Other 39 0.53
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 48.38 Overall working
memory
– ELA 272 0.34
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 48.38 Overall working
memory
– ELA 272 0.46
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 48.38 Overall working
memory
– ELA 272 0.48
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 48.38 Overall working
memory
– ELA 272 0.54
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 48.38 Overall working
memory
– Math 272 0.31
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 48.38 Overall working
memory
– Math 272 0.33
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 48.38 Overall working
memory
– Math 272 0.51
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 48.38 Overall working
memory
– Math 272 0.45
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 48.38 Overall working
memory
– Math 272 0.3

62
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 48.38 Overall working
memory
– Other 272 0.26
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 48.38 Overall working
memory
– Other 272 0.26
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 48.38 Overall working
memory
– Other 272 0.31
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 48.38 Overall working
memory
– Other 272 0.52
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 76.7 Central executive – ELA 279 0.28
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 76.7 Central executive – ELA 279 0.21
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 76.7 Central executive – Math 279 0.26
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 76.7 Central executive – Math 279 0.21
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 76.7 Central executive – Math 279 0.3
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 76.7 Central executive – Math 279 0.21
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 76.7 Central executive – Math 279 0.38
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 76.7 Central executive – Math 279 0.26
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 76.7 Central executive – Math 279 0.29
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 76.7 Central executive – Math 279 0.12

63
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 76.7 Central executive – Math 279 0.23
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 76.7 Central executive – Math 279 0.26
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 76.7 Central executive – Math 279 0.29
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 a
Published 76.7 Central executive – Math 279 0.27
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 77 Overall working
memory
– ELA 206 0.3
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 77 Overall working
memory
– ELA 206 0.41
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 77 Overall working
memory
– ELA 206 0.27
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 77 Overall working
memory
– ELA 206 0.33
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 77 Overall working
memory
– ELA 206 0.46
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 77 Overall working
memory
– ELA 206 0.41
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 77 Overall working
memory
– Math 206 0.34
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 77 Overall working
memory
– Math 206 0.43
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 77 Overall working
memory
– Math 206 0.29
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 77 Overall working
memory
– Math 206 0.14

64
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 77 Overall working
memory
– Math 206 0.35
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 77 Overall working
memory
– Math 206 0.49
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 77 Overall working
memory
– Math 206 0.45
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 77 Overall working
memory
– Math 206 0.24
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 77 Overall working
memory
– Other 206 0.27
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 77 Overall working
memory
– Other 206 0.46
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 312 0.46
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 312 0.43
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 312 0.37
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 312 0.38
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 312 0.47
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 312 0.38
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 312 0.48
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 312 0.46

65
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 312 0.43
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 312 0.35
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 312 0.39
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 312 0.35
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 312 0.29
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 312 0.28
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 312 0.18
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 312 0.29
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 312 0.4
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 312 0.26
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 312 0.26
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 312 0.27
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 312 0.39
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 312 0.26

66
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 312 0.28
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 312 0.39
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 312 0.22
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 312 0.21
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 312 0.26
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– Other 312 0.43
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– Other 312 0.32
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– Other 312 0.45
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– Other 312 0.3
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– Other 312 0.28
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 53.6 Overall working
memory
– Other 312 0.25
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 62.9 Phonological loop Match ELA 924 0.48
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 62.9 Phonological loop Match ELA 924 0.38
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 62.9 Overall working
memory
– ELA 924 0.27

67
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 62.9 Overall working
memory
– ELA 924 0.34
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 62.9 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 924 0.22
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 62.9 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 924 0.24
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 62.9 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 924 0.24
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 62.9 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 924 0.38
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 62.9 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 924 0.34
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 62.9 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 924 0.32
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 62.9 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 924 0.31
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 62.9 Overall working
memory
– Math 924 0.23
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 62.9 Overall working
memory
– Math 924 0.28
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 62.9 Overall working
memory
– Math 924 0.24
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 62.9 Overall working
memory
– Math 924 0.32
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 62.9 Overall working
memory
– Math 924 0.33
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 62.9 Overall working
memory
– Math 924 0.26

68
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 62.9 Overall working
memory
– Math 924 0.25
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 62.9 Phonological loop – Other 924 0.41
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 62.9 Phonological loop – Other 924 0.3
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 62.9 Overall working
memory
– Other 924 0.29
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 62.9 Overall working
memory
– Other 924 0.32
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 78 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 205 0.24
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 78 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 205 0.31
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 78 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 205 0.21
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 78 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 205 0.3
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 78 Phonological loop Match ELA 205 0.39
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 78 Phonological loop Match ELA 205 0.33
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 78 Phonological loop Match ELA 205 0.25
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 78 Phonological loop Match ELA 205 0.43
Fuchs L.S. et
al., 2010 b
Published 78 Central executive – ELA 205 0.5

69
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Fuchs, L. H. et
al, 2008
Published 78 Central executive – ELA 205 0.48
Fuchs, L. H. et
al, 2008
Published 78 Central executive – ELA 205 0.42
Fuchs, L. H. et
al, 2008
Published 78 Central executive – ELA 205 0.55
Fuchs, L. H. et
al, 2008
Published 78 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 205 0.14
Fuchs, L. H. et
al, 2008
Published 78 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 205 0.28
Fuchs, L. H. et
al, 2008
Published 78 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 205 0.3
Fuchs, L. H. et
al, 2008
Published 78 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 205 0.31
Fuchs, L. H. et
al, 2008
Published 78 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 205 0.27
Fuchs, L. H. et
al, 2008
Published 78 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 205 0.35
Fuchs, L. H. et
al, 2008
Published 78 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 205 0.35
Fuchs, L. H. et
al, 2008
Published 78 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 205 0.34
Fuchs, L. H. et
al, 2008
Published 78 Central executive – Math 205 0.37
Fuchs, L. H. et
al, 2008
Published 78 Central executive – Math 205 0.53
Fuchs, L. H. et
al, 2008
Published 78 Central executive – Math 205 0.47

70
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Fuchs, L. H. et
al, 2008
Published 78 Central executive – Math 205 0.59
Fuchs, L. H. et
al, 2008
Published 78 Phonological loop – Other 205 0.27
Fuchs, L. H. et
al, 2008
Published 78 Visuospatial
sketchpad
– Other 205 0.42
Fuchs, L. H. et
al, 2008
Published 78 Central executive – Other 205 0.51
Fuchs, L. H. et
al, 2008
Published 67 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 280 0.31
Fuchs, L. H. et
al, 2008
Published 67 Phonological loop Match ELA 280 0.38
Fuchs, L. H. et
al, 2008
Published 67 Central executive – ELA 280 0.45
Fuchs, L. H. et
al, 2008
Published 67 Central executive – ELA 280 0.49
Fuchs, L. S. et
al ., 2005
Published 67 Central executive – ELA 280 0.38
Fuchs, L. S. et
al ., 2005
Published 67 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 280 0.4
Fuchs, L. S. et
al ., 2005
Published 67 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 280 0.28
Fuchs, L. S. et
al ., 2005
Published 67 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 280 0.29
Fuchs, L. S. et
al ., 2005
Published 67 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 280 0.21
Fuchs, L. S. et
al ., 2005
Published 67 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 280 0.32

71
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Fuchs, L. S. et
al ., 2005
Published 67 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 280 0.31
Fuchs, L. S. et
al ., 2005
Published 67 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 280 0.3
Fuchs, L. S. et
al ., 2005
Published 67 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 280 0.3
Fuchs, L. S. et
al ., 2005
Published 67 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 280 0.21
Fuchs, L. S. et
al ., 2005
Published 67 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 280 0.2
Fuchs, L. S. et
al ., 2005
Published 67 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 280 0.26
Fuchs, L. S. et
al ., 2005
Published 67 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 280 0.3
Fuchs, L. S. et
al, 2013
Published 67 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 280 0.3
Fuchs, L. S. et
al, 2013
Published 67 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 280 0.42
Fuchs, L. S. et
al, 2013
Published 67 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 280 0.48
Fuchs, L. S. et
al, 2013
Published 67 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 280 0.34
Fuchs, L. S. et
al, 2013
Published 67 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 280 0.31
Fuchs, L. S. et
al, 2013
Published 67 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 280 0.23
Fuchs, L. S. et
al, 2013
Published 67 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 280 0.36

72
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Fuchs, L. S. et
al, 2013
Published 67 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 280 0.34
Fuchs, L. S. et
al, 2013
Published 67 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 280 0.37
Fuchs, L. S. et
al, 2013
Published 67 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 280 0.33
Fuchs, L. S. et
al, 2013
Published 67 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 280 0.32
Fuchs, L. S. et
al, 2013
Published 67 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 280 0.3
Fuchs, L. S. et
al, 2013
Published 67 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 280 0.29
Fuchs, L. S. et
al, 2013
Published 67 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 280 0.31
Fuchs, L. S. et
al, 2013
Published 67 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 280 0.38
Fuchs, L. S. et
al, 2013
Published 67 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 280 0.44
Fuchs, L. S. et
al, 2013
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.55
Fuchs, L. S. et
al, 2013
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.39
Fuchs, L. S. et
al, 2013
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.37
Fuchs, L. S. et
al, 2013
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.29
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.43

73
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.43
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.45
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.5
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.37
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive –– Math 280 0.36
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.43
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.43
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.5
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.57
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.5
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.39
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.35
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.31
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.43

74
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.37
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.48
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.48
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.35
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.3
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.41
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.44
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.51
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.58
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.47
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.32
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.32
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.26
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.39

75
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.38
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.32
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.43
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2006
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.35
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2012
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.34
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2012
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.4
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2012
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.35
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2012
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.38
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2012
Published 67 Central executive – Math 280 0.38
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2012
Published 67 Phonological loop – Other 280 0.41
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2012
Published 67 Visuospatial
sketchpad
– Other 280 0.43
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2012
Published 67 Central executive – Other 280 0.5
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2012
Published 67 Central executive – Other 280 0.41
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2012
Published 67 Central executive – Other 280 0.41

76
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2012
Published 77 Central executive – ELA 394 0.34
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2012
Published 77 Central executive – ELA 394 0.54
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2012
Published 77 Central executive – Math 394 0.35
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2012
Published 77 Central executive – Math 394 0.49
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2014
Published 77 Central executive – Math 394 0.27
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2014
Published 77 Central executive – Math 394 0.44
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2014
Published 77 Central executive – Math 394 0.39
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2014
Published 77 Central executive – Math 394 0.45
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2014
Published 77 Central executive – Math 394 0.39
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2014
Published 77 Central executive – Math 394 0.41
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2014
Published 77 Central executive – Math 394 0.4
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2014
Published 77 Central executive – Math 394 0.54
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2014
Published 77 Central executive – Math 394 0.38
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2014
Published 77 Central executive – Math 394 0.47

77
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2014
Published 77 Central executive – Math 394 0.46
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2014
Published 77 Central executive – Math 394 0.56
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2014
Published 77 Central executive – Math 394 0.52
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2014
Published 77 Central executive – Math 394 0.54
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2014
Published 77 Central executive – Other 394 0.39
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2014
Published 77 Central executive – Other 394 0.46
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2014
Published 90.5 Central executive – ELA 259 0.25
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2014
Published 90.5 Central executive – ELA 259 0.11
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2014
Published 90.5 Central executive – Math 259 0.2
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2014
Published 90.5 Central executive – Math 259 0.03
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2015
Published 90.5 Central executive – Math 259 0.21
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2015
Published 90.5 Central executive – Math 259 –0.02
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2015
Published 90.5 Central executive – Math 259 –0.14
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2015
Published 90.5 Central executive – Math 259 0.3

78
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2015
Published 90.5 Central executive – Math 259 0.29
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2015
Published 90.5 Central executive – Math 259 0.13
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2015
Published 90.5 Central executive – Math 259 0.12
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2015
Published 90.5 Central executive – Math 259 0.3
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2015
Published 90.5 Central executive – Math 259 –0.11
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2015
Published 90.5 Central executive –– Math 259 0.06
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2015
Published 90.5 Central executive – Math 259 0.04
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2015
Published 90.5 Central executive – Math 259 –0.1
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2015
Published 90.5 Central executive – Math 259 0.17
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2015
Published 90.5 Central executive – Math 259 0.22
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2015
Published 90.5 Central executive – Math 259 0.11
Fuchs, L. S. et
al., 2015
Published 90.5 Central executive – Math 259 0.13
Fuhs, M. W., et
al., 2015
Published 46 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 719 0.413
Fuhs, M. W., et
al., 2015
Published 46 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 719 0.393

79
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Fuhs, M. W., et
al., 2015
Published 46 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 719 0.358
Fuhs, M. W., et
al., 2015
Published 46 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 719 0.355
Fuhs, M. W., et
al., 2015
Published 46 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 719 0.231
Fuhs, M. W., et
al., 2015
Published 46 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 719 0.284
Fuhs, M. W., et
al., 2015
Published 46 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 719 0.187
Fuhs, M. W., et
al., 2015
Published 46 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 719 0.275
Fuhs, M. W., et
al., 2015
Published 46 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 719 0.447
Fuhs, M. W., et
al., 2015
Published 46 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 719 0.471
Fuhs, M. W., et
al., 2015
Published 46 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 719 0.324
Fuhs, M. W., et
al., 2015
Published 46 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 719 0.275
Gerst, E. H. et
al., 2017
Published 141.93 Overall working
memory
– ELA 93 –0.55
Gerst, E. H. et
al., 2017
Published 141.93 Overall working
memory
– ELA 93 0.55
Gerst, E. H. et
al., 2017
Published 141.93 Overall working
memory
– Math 93 –0.42
Gerst, E. H. et
al., 2017
Published 141.93 Overall working
memory
– Math 93 0.49

80
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Hansen, N. M.,
2015
Unpublished 75.4 Overall working
memory
– ELA 536 0.269
Hansen, N. M.,
2015
Unpublished 75.4 Overall working
memory
– ELA 536 0.217
Hansen, N. M.,
2015
Unpublished 75.4 Overall working
memory
– Math 536 0.258
Hansen, N. M.,
2015
Unpublished 75.4 Overall working
memory
– Math 536 –0.351
Hansen, N. M.,
2015
Unpublished 75.4 Overall working
memory
– Math 536 0.29
Hansen, N. M.,
2015
Unpublished 75.4 Overall working
memory
– Math 536 0.316
Hansen, N. M.,
2015
Unpublished 75.4 Overall working
memory
– Math 536 0.234
Hansen, N. M.,
2015
Unpublished 75.4 Overall working
memory
– Other 536 0.355
Harvey, H. A.,
2011
Unpublished 147 Overall working
memory
– ELA 96 0.04
Harvey, H. A.,
2011
Unpublished 147 Overall working
memory
– ELA 92 0.33
Harvey, H. A.,
2011
Unpublished 147 Overall working
memory
– Math 96 –0.09
Harvey, H. A.,
2011
Unpublished 147 Overall working
memory
– Math 92 0.67
Hecht, S. A. et
al., 2003
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 181 0.3
Hecht, S. A. et
al., 2003
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 181 0.18

81
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Hecht, S. A. et
al., 2003
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 181 0.24
Hecht, S. A. et
al., 2003
Published 66.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 105 0.25
Hecht, S. A. et
al., 2003
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 181 0.36
Hecht, S. A. et
al., 2003
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 181 0.24
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 181 0.31
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 181 0.33
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 181 0.29
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 181 0.35
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 181 0.39
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 181 0.25

82
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 181 0.32
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 181 0.26
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 181 0.31
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 181 0.35
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 181 0.28
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 181 0.43
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 181 0.42
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 181 0.35
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 181 0.4

83
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 181 0.32
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 181 0.38
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 181 0.36
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 181 0.38
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 181 0.38
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 181 0.42
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 181 0.28
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 66.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 105 0.23
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 66.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 105 0.51

84
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 66.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 105 0.4
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 66.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 105 0.16
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 66.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 105 0.46
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Other 181 0.24
Hecht, S. A., &
Vagi, K. J.,
2010
Published 79.6 Overall working
memory
– Other 181 0.24
Jordan, N. C. et
al., 2013
Published 68.7 Overall working
memory
– ELA 357 0.231
Jordan, N. C. et
al., 2013
Published 68.7 Overall working
memory
– ELA 357 0.196
Jordan, N. C. et
al., 2013
Published 68.7 Overall working
memory
– Math 357 –0.344
Jordan, N. C. et
al., 2013
Published 68.7 Overall working
memory
– Math 357 0.129
Jordan, N. C. et
al., 2013
Published 68.7 Overall working
memory
– Math 357 0.228
Jordan, N. C. et
al., 2013
Published 68.7 Overall working
memory
– Math 357 0.348

85
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Jordan, N. C. et
al., 2013
Published 68.7 Overall working
memory
– Math 357 0.335
Jordan, N. C. et
al., 2013
Published 68.7 Overall working
memory
– Math 357 0.354
Jordan, N. C. et
al., 2013
Published 68.7 Overall working
memory
– Math 357 0.341
Jordan, N. C. et
al., 2013
Published 68.7 Overall working
memory
– Other 357 0.322
Keeler, M. L.,
& Swanson,
H. L., 2001
Published 66 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 57 0.54
Keeler, M. L.,
& Swanson,
H. L., 2001
Published 66 Phonological loop Match ELA 57 0.51
Keeler, M. L.,
& Swanson,
H. L., 2001
Published 66 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 57 0.63
Keeler, M. L.,
& Swanson,
H. L., 2001
Published 66 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 57 0.3
Kulesz, P. A.,
2014
Unpublished 131.94 Overall working
memory
– ELA 579 0.32
Kulesz, P. A.,
2014
Unpublished 131.94 Overall working
memory
– ELA 579 0.25
Kulesz, P. A.,
2014
Unpublished 131.94 Overall working
memory
– ELA 579 0.32
Kulesz, P. A.,
2014
Unpublished 115.87 Overall working
memory
– ELA 611 0.28

86
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Kulesz, P. A.,
2014
Unpublished 115.87 Overall working
memory
– ELA 611 0.32
Kulesz, P. A.,
2014
Unpublished 115.87 Overall working
memory
– ELA 611 0.27
Laing, S. P., &
Kamhi, A.
G., 2002
Published 75 Phonological loop Match ELA 40 0.39
Laing, S. P., &
Kamhi, A.
G., 2002
Published 75 Phonological loop Match ELA 40 0.55
Laing, S. P., &
Kamhi, A.
G., 2002
Published 75 Phonological loop Match ELA 40 0.52
Laing, S. P., &
Kamhi, A.
G., 2002
Published 75 Phonological loop Match ELA 40 0.26
Laing, S. P., &
Kamhi, A.
G., 2002
Published 75 Phonological loop Match ELA 40 0.35
Lanfranchi, S.,
& Swanson,
H. L., 2005
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 90 0.14
Lanfranchi, S.,
& Swanson,
H. L., 2005
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 90 0.11
Lanfranchi, S.,
& Swanson,
H. L., 2005
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 90 –0.03

87
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Lanfranchi, S.,
& Swanson,
H. L., 2005
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 90 0.1
Lanfranchi, S.,
& Swanson,
H. L., 2005
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 90 0.23
Lanfranchi, S.,
& Swanson,
H. L., 2005
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 90 0.16
Lanfranchi, S.,
& Swanson,
H. L., 2005
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 90 –0.01
Lanfranchi, S.,
& Swanson,
H. L., 2005
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 90 0.17
Lanfranchi, S.,
& Swanson,
H. L., 2005
Published 190 Overall working
memory
– ELA 90 0.18
Lanfranchi, S.,
& Swanson,
H. L., 2005
Published 190 Overall working
memory
– ELA 90 –0.1
Lanfranchi, S.,
& Swanson,
H. L., 2005
Published 190 Overall working
memory
– ELA 90 0.08
Lanfranchi, S.,
& Swanson,
H. L., 2005
Published 190 Overall working
memory
– ELA 90 0.26

88
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Lanfranchi, S.,
& Swanson,
H. L., 2005
Published 190 Overall working
memory
– ELA 90 0.11
Lanfranchi, S.,
& Swanson,
H. L., 2005
Published 190 Overall working
memory
– ELA 90 –0.04
Lanfranchi, S.,
& Swanson,
H. L., 2005
Published 190 Overall working
memory
– ELA 90 –0.02
Lanfranchi, S.,
& Swanson,
H. L., 2005
Published 190 Overall working
memory
– ELA 90 0.09
Lee, S. E., 2014 Unpublished 84 – – ELA 50 0.23
Lee, S. E., 2014 Unpublished 84 – – ELA 50 0.44
Lee, S. E., 2014 Unpublished 84 – – ELA 50 0.36
Lee, S. E., 2014 Unpublished 84 – – ELA 50 0.33
Lee, S. E., 2014 Unpublished 84 – – ELA 50 0.32
Lee, S. E., 2014 Unpublished 84 Overall working
memory
– ELA 50 0.04
Lee, S. E., 2014 Unpublished 84 Overall working
memory
– ELA 50 –0.22
Lee, S. E., 2014 Unpublished 84 Overall working
memory
– ELA 50 –0.1
Lee, S. E., 2014 Unpublished 84 Overall working
memory
– ELA 50 –0.03
Lee, S. E., 2014 Unpublished 84 Overall working
memory
– ELA 50 –0.25

89
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Lewis, E. E., et
al., 2007
Published 84.9 Overall working
memory
– ELA 102 0.04
Raschke, V. R.,
2013
Unpublished 181 Overall working
memory
– ELA 36 0.13
Raschke, V. R.,
2013
Unpublished 181 Overall working
memory
– ELA 36 –0.16
Raschke, V. R.,
2013
Unpublished 181 Overall working
memory
– ELA 30 –0.06
Raschke, V. R.,
2013
Unpublished 181 Overall working
memory
– ELA 30 –0.08
Raschke, V. R.,
2013
Unpublished 181 Overall working
memory
– ELA 26 0.23
Raschke, V. R.,
2013
Unpublished 181 Overall working
memory
– ELA 26 0.26
Rose, S. A. et
al., 2011
Published 125.96 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 131 0.16
Rose, S. A. et
al., 2011
Published 125.96 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 131 0.31
Rose, S. A. et
al., 2011
Published 125.96 Phonological loop Match ELA 131 0.24
Rose, S. A. et
al., 2011
Published 125.96 Phonological loop Match ELA 131 0.24
Rose, S. A. et
al., 2011
Published 125.96 Phonological loop Match ELA 131 0.23
Rose, S. A. et
al., 2011
Published 125.96 Phonological loop Match ELA 131 0.38
Rose, S. A. et
al., 2011
Published 125.96 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 131 0.28

90
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Rose, S. A. et
al., 2011
Published 125.96 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 131 0.34
Rose, S. A. et
al., 2011
Published 125.96 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 131 0.2
Rose, S. A. et
al., 2011
Published 125.96 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 131 0.41
Rose, S. A. et
al., 2011
Published 125.96 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 131 0.19
Rose, S. A. et
al., 2011
Published 125.96 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 131 0.32
Sanchez, E.,
2007
Unpublished 200 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 55 0.25
Sanchez, E.,
2007
Unpublished 200 Phonological loop Match ELA 55 0.39
Sanchez, E.,
2007
Unpublished 200 Central executive – ELA 55 0.22
Sanchez, E.,
2007
Unpublished 200 Overall working
memory
– ELA 55 0.4
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– ELA 315 0.19
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– ELA 315 0.28
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– ELA 315 0.28

91
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– ELA 315 0.29
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– ELA 315 0.38
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– ELA 315 0.26
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– ELA 315 0.4
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– ELA 315 0.43
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– ELA 315 0.34
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– ELA 315 0.46
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– ELA 315 0.48
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– ELA 315 0.42

92
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– ELA 315 0.35
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– ELA 315 0.43
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– ELA 315 0.37
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– ELA 315 0.37
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– ELA 315 0.43
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– ELA 315 0.46
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– ELA 315 0.5
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– ELA 315 0.38
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– ELA 315 0.5

93
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– Math 315 0.22
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– Math 315 0.27
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– Math 315 0.29
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– Math 315 0.34
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– Math 315 0.31
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– Math 315 0.35
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– Math 315 0.28
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– Math 315 0.33
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– Math 315 0.38

94
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– Other 315 0.25
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– Other 315 0.27
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– Other 315 0.4
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– Other 315 0.3
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– Other 315 0.44
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– Other 315 0.39
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– Other 315 0.32
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– Other 315 0.43
Seethaler, P.
M., & Fuchs,
L. S., 2006
Published 53.9 Overall working
memory
– Other 315 0.47

95
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Swanson, H. L.
2011
Published 78.74 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 127 0.22
Swanson, H. L.
2011
Published 78.74 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 127 0.34
Swanson, H. L.
2011
Published 78.74 Phonological loop Match ELA 127 0.11
Swanson, H. L.
2011
Published 78.74 Phonological loop Match ELA 127 0.19
Swanson, H. L.
2011
Published 78.74 Phonological loop Match ELA 127 0.16
Swanson, H. L.
2011
Published 78.74 Central executive – ELA 127 0.27
Swanson, H. L.
2011
Published 78.74 Central executive – ELA 127 0.22
Swanson, H. L.
2011
Published 78.74 Central executive – ELA 127 0.33
Swanson, H. L.
2011
Published 78.74 Central executive – ELA 127 0.41
Swanson, H. L.
2011
Published 78.74 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 127 0.13
Swanson, H. L.
2011
Published 78.74 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 127 0.09
Swanson, H. L.
2011
Published 78.74 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 127 0.15
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 78.74 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 127 0.15
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 78.74 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 127 0.21

96
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 78.74 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 127 0.2
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 78.74 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 127 0.21
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 78.74 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 127 0.25
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 78.74 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 127 0.35
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 78.74 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 127 0.34
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 78.74 Central executive – Math 127 0.32
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 78.74 Central executive – Math 127 0.34
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 78.74 Central executive – Math 127 0.25
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 78.74 Central executive – Math 127 0.23
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 78.74 Central executive – Math 127 0.41
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 78.74 Central executive – Math 127 0.41
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 78.74 Central executive – Math 127 0.38
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 78.74 Central executive – Math 127 0.37
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 87.8 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 320 0.32

97
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 87.8 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 320 0.29
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 87.8 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 320 0.32
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 87.8 Phonological loop Match ELA 320 0.54
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 87.8 Phonological loop Match ELA 320 0.56
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 87.8 Phonological loop Match ELA 320 0.43
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 87.8 Central executive – ELA 320 0.6
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 87.8 Central executive – ELA 320 0.6
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 87.8 Central executive – ELA 320 0.56
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 87.8 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 320 0.44
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 87.8 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 320 0.44
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 87.8 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 320 0.4
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 87.8 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 320 0.35
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 87.8 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 320 0.33
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 87.8 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 320 0.23

98
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 87.8 Central executive – Math 320 0.57
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 87.8 Central executive – Math 320 0.56
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 87.8 Central executive – Math 320 0.5
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 205 0.26
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 205 0.12
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 205 0.31
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Phonological loop Match ELA 205 0.31
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Phonological loop Match ELA 205 0.19
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Phonological loop Match ELA 205 0.35
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Phonological loop Match ELA 205 0.31
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Phonological loop Match ELA 205 0.31
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Phonological loop Match ELA 205 0.3
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Phonological loop Match ELA 205 0.26
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Phonological loop Match ELA 205 0.28

99
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Phonological loop Match ELA 205 0.27
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 205 0.25
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 205 0.26
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 205 0.33
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 205 0.2
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 205 0.38
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 205 0.42
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 205 0.43
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 205 0.25
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Overall working
memory
– ELA 205 0.3
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 205 0.34
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 205 0.24
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 205 0.26
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 205 0.37

100
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 205 0.35
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 205 0.49
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 95.6 Overall working
memory
– Math 205 0.35
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 83 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 290 0.31
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 83 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 290 0.32
Swanson, H. L.
et al., 2006
Published 83 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 290 0.33
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 83 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 290 0.4
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 83 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 290 0.4
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 83 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 290 0.4
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 83 Phonological loop Match ELA 290 0.4
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 83 Phonological loop Match ELA 290 0.49
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 83 Phonological loop Match ELA 290 0.48
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 83 Phonological loop Match ELA 290 0.54
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 83 Phonological loop Match ELA 290 0.51

101
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 83 Phonological loop Match ELA 290 0.5
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 83 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 290 0.3
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 83 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 290 0.33
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 83 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 290 0.4
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 83 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 290 0.48
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 83 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 290 0.48
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 83 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 290 0.47
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 83 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 290 0.28
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 83 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 290 0.32
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 83 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 290 0.31
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 83 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 290 0.4
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 83 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 290 0.44
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 83 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 290 0.46
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 89.8 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 104 0.35

102
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 89.8 Phonological loop Match ELA 104 0.72
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 89.8 Central executive – ELA 104 0.7
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 89.8 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 104 0.77
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 89.8 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 104 0.63
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 a
Published 89.8 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 104 0.59
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 b
Published 89.8 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 104 0.19
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 b
Published 89.8 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 104 0.45
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 b
Published 89.8 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 104 0.32
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 b
Published 89.8 Central executive – Math 104 0.66
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 b
Published 89.8 Central executive – Math 104 0.66
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 b
Published 89.8 Central executive – Math 104 0.49
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 b
Published 200 Phonological loop Match ELA 488 0.46
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 b
Published 200 Phonological loop Match ELA 488 0.27
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 b
Published 200 Phonological loop Match ELA 488 0.4

103
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 b
Published 200 Phonological loop Match ELA 488 0.28
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 b
Published 200 Phonological loop Match ELA 488 0.33
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 b
Published 200 Phonological loop Match ELA 488 0.31
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 b
Published 200 Phonological loop Match ELA 488 0.36
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 b
Published 200 Phonological loop Match ELA 488 0.36
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 b
Published 200 Central executive – ELA 488 0.44
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 b
Published 200 Central executive – ELA 488 0.3
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 b
Published 200 Central executive – ELA 488 0.41
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 b
Published 200 Central executive – ELA 488 0.33
Swanson, H. L.,
2006 b
Published 200 Central executive – ELA 488 0.39
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 200 Central executive – ELA 488 0.41
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 200 Central executive – ELA 488 0.4
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 200 Central executive – ELA 488 0.47
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 0.09

104
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 –0.04
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 0.24
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 0.24
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 0.18
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 0.11
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 0.11
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 0.09
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 0.03
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 –0.09
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 0.18
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 0.16
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 0.13
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 –0.1
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 0.09

105
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 0.11
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 –0.04
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 –0.23
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 0.56
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 0.46
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 –0.03
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 –0.01
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 –0.1
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 0.18
Swanson, H. L.,
2008
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 –0.06
Swanson, H. L.,
2011
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 –0.22
Swanson, H. L.,
2011
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 0.48
Swanson, H. L.,
2011
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 0.4
Swanson, H. L.,
2011
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 –0.02

106
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Swanson, H. L.,
2011
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 –0.02
Swanson, H. L.,
2011
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 0.09
Swanson, H. L.,
2011
Published 190 Phonological loop Match ELA 80 0.12
Swanson, H. L.,
2011
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 –0.07
Swanson, H. L.,
2011
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 0.11
Swanson, H. L.,
2011
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 0.04
Swanson, H. L.,
2011
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 0.07
Swanson, H. L.,
2011
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 –0.01
Swanson, H. L.,
2011
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 –0.1
Swanson, H. L.,
2011
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 –0.11
Swanson, H. L.,
2011
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 0.01
Swanson, H. L.,
2011
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 –0.14
Swanson, H. L.,
2011
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 –0.17
Swanson, H. L.,
2011
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 –0.01

107
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Swanson, H. L.,
2011
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 0.03
Swanson, H. L.,
2011
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 –0.06
Swanson, H. L.,
2011
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 –0.07
Swanson, H. L.,
2011
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 –0.15
Swanson, H. L.,
2011
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 0.07
Swanson, H. L.,
2011
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 0.25
Swanson, H. L.,
2015
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 0.16
Swanson, H. L.,
2015
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 0.21
Swanson, H. L.,
2015
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 0.16
Swanson, H. L.,
2015
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 –0.19
Swanson, H. L.,
2015
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 –0.17
Swanson, H. L.,
2015
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 –0.01
Swanson, H. L.,
2015
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 –0.1
Swanson, H. L.,
2015
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 0.2

108
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Swanson, H. L.,
2015
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 0.17
Swanson, H. L.,
2015
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 0.08
Swanson, H. L.,
2015
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 0.05
Swanson, H. L.,
2015
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 –0.24
Swanson, H. L.,
2015
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 –0.19
Swanson, H. L.,
2015
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 –0.04
Swanson, H. L.,
2015
Published 190 Central executive – ELA 80 0.11
Swanson, H. L.,
2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– ELA 215 0.41
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– ELA 215 0.43
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– ELA 215 0.4
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– ELA 215 0.4
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– ELA 215 0.28
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– ELA 215 0.33
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– ELA 215 0.28

109
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– ELA 215 0.36
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– ELA 188 0.22
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– ELA 188 0.24
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– ELA 188 0.32
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– ELA 188 0.27
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– ELA 188 0.18
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– ELA 188 0.17
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– ELA 188 0.26
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– ELA 188 0.14
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– ELA 182 0.22
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– ELA 182 0.18
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– ELA 182 0.15
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– ELA 182 0.25
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– ELA 182 0.29

110
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– ELA 182 0.27
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– ELA 182 0.26
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– ELA 182 0.22
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– Other 215 0.28
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– Other 215 0.27
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– Other 215 0.35
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– Other 215 0.27
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– Other 215 0.26
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– Other 215 0.25
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– Other 188 0.22
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– Other 188 0.27
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– Other 188 0.32
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– Other 188 0.09
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– Other 188 0.17

111
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– Other 188 0.26
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– Other 182 0.19
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– Other 182 0.24
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– Other 182 0.25
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– Other 182 0.18
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– Other 182 0.27
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Published 72 Overall working
memory
– Other 182 0.24
Tighe, E. L. et
al., 2015
Unpublished 58.7 Overall working
memory
– ELA 138 0.55
Turner, K. A.,
2010
Unpublished 58.7 Overall working
memory
– ELA 138 0.37
Turner, K. A.,
2010
Unpublished 58.7 Overall working
memory
– Math 138 0.67
Turner, K. A.,
2010
Unpublished 58.7 Overall working
memory
– Other 138 0.27
Turner, K. A.,
2010
Unpublished 118 Overall working
memory
– ELA 179 0.331
Vitiello, V. E.,
2009
Unpublished 118 Overall working
memory
– ELA 179 0.372
Vitiello, V. E.,
2009
Unpublished 118 Overall working
memory
– ELA 179 0.294

112
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Vitiello, V. E.,
2009
Unpublished 118 Overall working
memory
– ELA 179 0.26
Vitiello, V. E.,
2009
Unpublished 118 Overall working
memory
– ELA 179 0.366
Vitiello, V. E.,
2009
Unpublished 118 Overall working
memory
– ELA 179 0.263
Vitiello, V. E.,
2009
Unpublished 118 Overall working
memory
– ELA 179 0.192
Vitiello, V. E.,
2009
Unpublished 118 Overall working
memory
– ELA 179 0.223
Vitiello, V. E.,
2009
Unpublished 118 Overall working
memory
– ELA 179 0.197
Vitiello, V. E.,
2009
Unpublished 118 Overall working
memory
– ELA 179 0.251
Vitiello, V. E.,
2009
Unpublished 118 Overall working
memory
– ELA 179 0.256
Vitiello, V. E.,
2009
Unpublished 118 Overall working
memory
– ELA 179 0.207
Vitiello, V. E.,
2009
Unpublished 118 Overall working
memory
– Math 179 0.319
Vitiello, V. E.,
2009
Unpublished 118 Overall working
memory
– Math 179 0.4
Vitiello, V. E.,
2009
Unpublished 118 Overall working
memory
– Math 179 0.186
Vitiello, V. E.,
2009
Unpublished 118 Overall working
memory
– Math 179 0.245
Vitiello, V. E.,
2009
Unpublished 118 Overall working
memory
– Other 179 0.205

113
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Vitiello, V. E.,
2009
Unpublished 118 Overall working
memory
– Other 179 0.149
Vitiello, V. E.,
2009
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 167 0.29
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 167 0.27
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 167 0.3
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 167 0.26
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 167 0.2
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 167 0.24
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 167 0.22

114
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 167 0.27
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.24
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.22
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.25
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.19
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.27
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.28

115
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.31
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.25
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.34
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.31
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.26
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.33
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.36

116
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.31
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.14
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.23
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.2
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.2
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.32
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.27

117
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.31
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.2
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.4
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.29
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.16
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.25
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.3

118
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 167 0.18
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
– Other 167 0.21
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
– Other 167 0.15
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
– Other 167 0.24
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.536 Visuospatial
sketchpad
– Other 167 0.18
Vukovic, R.
K., &
Lesaux, N.
K., 2013
Published 158.4 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 113 0.15
Vukovic, R.
K., et al.,
2013
Published 158.4 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 113 0.12

119
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Vukovic, R.
K., et al.,
2013
Published 158.4 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 113 0.2
Vukovic, R.
K., et al.,
2013
Published 158.4 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 113 0.41
Vukovic, R.
K., et al.,
2013
Published 158.4 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 113 0.32
Vukovic, R.
K., et al.,
2013
Published 158.4 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 113 0.19
Vukovic, R.
K., et al.,
2013
Published 158.4 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 113 0.3
Vukovic, R.
K., et al.,
2013
Published 158.4 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 113 0.32
Waber, D. P. et
al., 2006
Published 81 Phonological loop Match ELA 91 0.44
Waber, D. P. et
al., 2006
Published 81 Phonological loop Match ELA 91 0.42
Waber, D. P. et
al., 2006
Published 81 Phonological loop Match ELA 91 0.47
Waber, D. P. et
al., 2006
Published 81 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 91 0.37
Waber, D. P. et
al., 2006
Published 81 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 91 0.39

120
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Waber, D. P. et
al., 2006
Published 81 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 91 0.32
Welsh, J. A. et
al., 2010
Published 58 Overall working
memory
– ELA 164 0.65
Welsh, J. A. et
al., 2010
Published 58 Overall working
memory
– ELA 164 0.61
Welsh, J. A. et
al., 2010
Published 58 Overall working
memory
– ELA 164 0.61
Welsh, J. A. et
al., 2010
Published 58 Overall working
memory
– ELA 164 0.63
Welsh, J. A. et
al., 2010
Published 58 Overall working
memory
– Math 164 0.5
Welsh, J. A. et
al., 2010
Published 58 Overall working
memory
– Math 164 0.44
Welsh, J. A. et
al., 2010
Published 58 Overall working
memory
– Math 164 0.58
Welsh, J. A. et
al., 2010
Published 58 Overall working
memory
– Math 164 0.51
Welsh, J. A. et
al., 2010
Published 58 Overall working
memory
– ELA 164 0.32
Welsh, J. A. et
al., 2010
Published 58 Overall working
memory
– ELA 164 0.52
Welsh, J. A. et
al., 2010
Published 58 Overall working
memory
– Math 164 0.39
Welsh, J. A. et
al., 2010
Published 58 Overall working
memory
– Math 164 0.58

121
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Willoughby,
M. T. et al.,
2012
Published 43 Overall working
memory
– ELA 1058 0.06
Willoughby,
M. T. et al.,
2012
Published 43 Overall working
memory
– ELA 1058 0.24
Willoughby,
M. T. et al.,
2012
Published 43 Overall working
memory
– ELA 1058 0.14
Willoughby,
M. T. et al.,
2012
Published 43 Overall working
memory
– ELA 1058 0.34
Willoughby,
M. T. et al.,
2012
Published 43 Overall working
memory
– Math 1058 0.2
Willoughby,
M. T. et al.,
2012
Published 43 Overall working
memory
– Math 1058 0.18
Willoughby,
M. T. et al.,
2012
Published 43 Overall working
memory
– Math 1058 0.2
Willoughby,
M. T. et al.,
2012
Published 43 Overall working
memory
– Math 1058 0.37
Willoughby,
M. T. et al.,
2012
Published 43 Overall working
memory
– Math 1058 0.35

122
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Willoughby,
M. T. et al.,
2012
Published 43 Overall working
memory
– Math 1058 0.35
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 310 0.42
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 310 0.43
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 310 0.42
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Mismatch ELA 310 0.33
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Phonological loop Match ELA 310 0.3
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Phonological loop Match ELA 310 0.26
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Phonological loop Match ELA 310 0.24
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Phonological loop Match ELA 310 0.16
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Phonological loop Match ELA 310 0.31
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Phonological loop Match ELA 310 0.23
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Central executive – ELA 310 0.25
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Central executive – ELA 310 0.21

123
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Central executive – ELA 310 0.19
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Central executive – ELA 310 0.22
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 310 0.31
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 310 0.15
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 310 0.34
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 310 0.33
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 310 0.29
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 310 0.29
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 310 0.24
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 310 0.2
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 310 0.32
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 310 0.28
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 310 0.31
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 310 0.3

124
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 310 0.31
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 310 0.14
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 310 0.36
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 310 0.37
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 310 0.21
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Phonological loop Mismatch Math 310 0.23
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 310 0.45
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 310 0.24
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 310 0.38
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 310 0.38
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 310 0.26
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 310 0.29
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 310 0.42
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 310 0.24

125
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 310 0.38
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 310 0.46
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 310 0.23
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Visuospatial
sketchpad
Match Math 310 0.24
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Central executive – Math 310 0.27
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Central executive – Math 310 0.2
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Central executive – Math 310 0.22
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Central executive – Math 310 0.24
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Central executive – Math 310 0.31
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Central executive – Math 310 0.33
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Central executive – Math 310 0.31
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Central executive – Math 310 0.2
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Central executive – Math 310 0.2
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Central executive – Math 310 0.24

126
Report citation Publication
status
Sample
(% Black
and
Latinx)
Working memory
component examined
Possible match of
working memory
component to
outcome domain
Outcome
domain
Sample
size (N)
Correlation
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Central executive – Math 310 0.39
Zheng, X. et
al., 2011
Published 88.6 Central executive – Math 310 0.38

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This synthesis examines the relationship between working memory and achievement for populations with a high percentage of Black and Latinx students. Reports were derived from Hattie’s “Visible Learning” metacognition strategies and working memory strength influences. These reports were searched using USC Library Database, Google Scholar, ProQuest, ERIC, and PsycINFO or via Interlibrary Loan and Document Deliveries. From these influences, 1,058 reports were identified, and 45 of these reports were coded and included. Studies that were 40% or more Black and/or Latinx, conducted in the United States, and related to working memory strength were included. Studies were coded to extract relevant information related to the sample, experimental design, working memory components and tests, outcome domains, and correlations. Multilevel meta-analysis with robust variance estimation revealed a statistically significant average correlation of .316 between working memory and achievement among Black and Latinx samples and little evidence for publication bias. Moderator analyses suggested that neither the outcome domain nor the match of the working component to the outcome domain significantly influenced the relationship. The results indicated that as the population of Black and Latinx students increased, the relationship between working memory and achievement was weaker. This may be explained by the indirect effect of these populations’ adverse experiences on working memory, or by possible construct-irrelevant variance in the tests used in included reports. Limitations of this synthesis include the exclusion of other minority populations, studies included are limited to those included by Hattie’s (2023) synthesis, and the aforementioned possible construct-irrelevant variance in the reports.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The effects of technology on the mathematical achievement of Black and Latinx students

PDF

Unveiling the visible impact: a meta-analysis on inquiry-based teaching and the effects on Black and Latinx student achievement

PDF

Bridging gaps, building futures: a meta-analysis of collaborative learning and achievement for Black and Latinx students

PDF

A meta-analysis of formative assessment on academic achievement among Black and Hispanic students

PDF

Learning together: a meta-analysis of the effect of cooperative learning on achievement among Black and Latinx students

PDF

The effects of inclusive education on academic achievement for special education and general education students of color: a meta-analysis

PDF

A meta-analysis exploring the relationships between racial identity, ethnic identity, and Black students' positive self-perceptions in school

PDF

Problems and solutions for school counselors supporting Black and Latinx students in the 21st century

PDF

Addressing degree completion among Latinx working adults

PDF

The relationship between Latinx undergraduate students’ mental health and college graduation rates

PDF

Effects of teacher autonomy support with structure on marginalized urban student math achievement

PDF

The Relationship Between Institutional Marketing and Communications and Black Student Intent to Persist in Private Universities

PDF

Help, I need somebody: an examination of the role of model minority myth and goal orientations in Asian American college students' academic help-seeking practices

PDF

The relationship between student perceptions of parental expectations, utility value, aptitude and English achievement among Asian American high school students

PDF

Racism, discrimination and stereotypes: the cost of success for Black women in the workplace

PDF

A different world: exploring how Black students facilitate their own success at a public, 4-year institution

PDF

Are acculturation and parenting styles related to academic achievement among Latino students?

PDF

Addressing the education debt: how community college educators utilize culturally relevant pedagogy to support Black and Latinx student success

PDF

Academic achievement, same- and cross-ethnic positive peer regard among Asian American and Latinx adolescents

PDF

Impact of positive student–staff relationships and the social–emotional outcomes of Black high school students classified with an emotional disability

Asset Metadata

Creator Giese, Jillian (author)

Core Title The relationship between working memory and achievement among Black and Latinx students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 04/10/2024

Defense Date 03/25/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag academic achievement,Black student populations,clubSandwich R,construct-irrelevant variance,executive component,Hattie’s visible learning,Latinx student populations,meta-analysis,metafor R,OAI-PMH Harvest,phonological loop,synthesis,visuospatial sketchpad,working memory

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kho, Adam (committee chair), Patall, Erika (committee chair), Samkian, Artineh (committee member)

Creator Email jgiese@usc.edu,jillian710@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113871421

Unique identifier UC113871421

Identifier etd-GieseJilli-12796.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-GieseJilli-12796

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Giese, Jillian

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240412-usctheses-batch-1139 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu