Attention and Working Memory as Predictors of Intelligence.

185 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Reasoning=working memory¿attention (2005, result): “This finding is extensively unique and in contrast to Ackerman, Beier, and Boyle (2002) as well as in contrast to other studies (Conway et al., 2002; Schweizer & Moosbrugger, 2004; Suess, Oberauer, Wittmann, Wilhelm, & Schulze, 2002).”
The Relations of Gender and Personality Traits on Different Creativities: A Dual-Process Theory Account (2012, unknown): “The test has established stable reliability and validity results: The retest reliability was .91 (Fould, Forbes, & Bevans, 1962), and the correlations between the APM scores and intelligence tests were high (e.g., rs .4 to .6, Schweizer & Moosbrugger, 2004).”
Working Memory Dimensions as Differential Predictors of the Speed and Error Aspect of Multitasking Performance (2006, background): “…studying the relation between attention, working memory, and reasoning assume that attention is the most basic construct, followed by working memory, whereas reasoning is the most elaborated construct (e.g., Engle, 2002; Oberauer, Schulze, Wilhelm, & Süß, 2005; Schweizer & Moosbrugger, 2004).”
Working Memory, Fluid Intelligence, and Attention Are Predictors of Multitasking Performance, but Polychronicity and Extraversion Are Not (2005, background): “These arguments imply the following hierarchical order (from bottom to top): attention as the most basic capacity, then working memory, and then fluid intelligence (Schweizer & Moosbrugger, 2004).”