Part 1

According to the summary, the researchers measured children's IQ, math skills, reading skills,

and SES (socioeconomic status) at age 7, and then measured their income at age 42. This study

was able to predict people's midlife income based on their mathematical proficiency at age

seven. There were other possibly relevant factors, but "even when those were controlled for, the

association between basic math and reading skills and future socioeconomic status remained, and

remained significant."

Questions (Part 1):

1. What might the regression table have looked like in the study? What would the DV (criterion

variable) have been? What would the predictor variables have been? Estimate what you think the

beta might have been for the predictor, "Math skills at age 7"-that is, is it positive or negative?

Significant or not?

2. Suppose a critic reads this article and says, "I don't think that it's math skills I think it's IQ.

Smarter people just earn more money and they did better at math as kids, that's all." What should

you say in response? In this study, is IQ a potential third variable that could explain the

association between math skills and future income?

3. Now suppose that a critic suggests that school quality might be a third variable. Kids who go

to higher-quality schools had better math skills and also made more money. In this study, is

school quality a potential third variable that could have explained the association between math

skills and future income?