I've read in several places (not to spark any controversy) that Working Memory is probably the best indicator of academic success in elementary school. The particular study I'm thinking of measured working memory at the beginning of a child's schooling (around age five) and their subsequent academic progress at around age twelve.
I (think) the authors of the study were stating that working memory seemed to be the deciding factor independent of IQ score. (although working memory at least on the WISC is part of FSIQ- so a bit confused). Also, working memory was shown to be independent of parent's level of education or socio economic background.
I would be interested in seeing how working memory plays out as these children age through high school and college as academic subjects become more complex. I probably have a pretty excellent working memory (self-assessed) and was stymied by calculus and economics.
The best measure of scholastic achievement to my knowledge is g, and not working memory. Some scholars have argued that working memory and g are one and the same, but the methods used to support this hypothesis are shoddy. Moreover, digit span forward is a poor measure of g, and I believe it was Terman who seriously considered removing it from the Stanford-Binet (although it was ultimately retained because of the clinically rich data it provided on the subject).
Thank you Zen Scanner and Madeinuk for the salutations.
I'd read that, also. I wonder if working memory can improve with age.
Working memory increases with age up to a certain point, after which it begins to decline. However, up-to-date IQ tests (such as the WAIS) are age-normed and take into account such decline. The average digit span for a twenty year old, for example, is 7 digits, while the average for a person in his or her sixties would be about 5.5.
