International Studies Show 1.16 Male-Female Reading Score Variance Ratio

A recent social media post by user "Crémieux" highlighted a male-to-female (M:F) variance ratio of 1.16 in academic performance, noting that "it isn't that dramatic of a difference" and referencing "last year's ACT result" for perspective. This specific figure aligns with findings from extensive meta-analyses on gender differences in the variability of standardized test scores.

The 1.16 variance ratio in reading ability was reported in a 2019 meta-analytic study by Gray, Lyth, McKenna, et al., published in Large-scale Assessments in Education. This research extended earlier work by Baye and Monseur (2016), examining data from international assessments like PISA, PIRLS, and TIMSS across numerous countries. A ratio greater than 1.0 indicates higher variability among males, meaning males are more represented at both the high and low extremes of the score distribution compared to females.

While the tweet emphasizes the non-dramatic nature of the 1.16 ratio, the broader "greater male variability hypothesis" suggests a consistent pattern across various cognitive domains. For instance, the Gray et al. (2019) study found average male variance to be 12% greater in mathematics and 13% greater in science across international samples. Similarly, a 2010 meta-analysis by Hyde, Lindberg, Linn, et al. on mathematics performance in the U.S. found an overall weighted variance ratio of 1.07, indicating slightly greater male variability in that subject.

The tweet's reference to ACT results serves as an anecdotal comparison point for a statistically observed phenomenon. Researchers continue to explore the complex factors contributing to these variance differences, which can include biological, psychological, and sociocultural influences. Understanding these patterns is crucial for developing equitable educational strategies and addressing representation in fields that draw heavily on specific cognitive abilities.

The persistence of these variance patterns, even if considered "not dramatic" by some, remains a significant area of study in educational psychology, influencing discussions around talent identification and support for students across the entire spectrum of academic achievement.