Table 1
Break Down of the Demographic Variables for the Two Tested Samples.
| VARIABLE | PORTUGAL (N = 195) | BRAZIL (N = 154) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | Mean | 31.85 | 23.01 |
| SD | 13.39 | 8.75 | |
| Range | 17–65 | 17–61 | |
| Gender | Woman | 131 (67.2%) | 114 (74%) |
| Man | 61 (31.3%) | 35 (22.7%) | |
| Rather not say | 3 (1.5%) | 5 (3.2%) | |
| Covid-19 | Yes | 17 (8.7%) | 66 (42.9%) |
| No | 178 (91.3%) | 88 (57.1%) | |
| Education | No education | 0 | 1 (0.6%) |
| 9th class | 1 (0.5%) | 0 | |
| High school | 52 (26.7%) | 63 (40.9%) | |
| Bachelor degree | 67 (34.4%) | 84 (54.5%) | |
| Master degree | 44 (22.6%) | 4 (2.6%) | |
| Doctoral degree | 31 (15.9%) | 2 (1.3%) | |
| Mother Educ. | No education | 1 (0.5%) | 1 (0.6%) |
| Elementary school | 32 (16.4%) | 5 (3.2%) | |
| 6th Grade | 17 (8.7%) | 7 (4.5%) | |
| Middle School | 21 (10.8%) | 2 (1.3%) | |
| High-school | 42 (21.53%) | 39 (25.3%) | |
| Bachelor degree | 62 (31.8%) | 61 (39.6%) | |
| Master degree | 13 (6.7%) | 27 (17.5%) | |
| Doctoral degree | 7 (3.6%) | 12 (7.8%) | |
Figure 1
Illustration of the Flow of Events in the Three Working Memory Tasks: A. Reading Span, B. Symmetry Span, and C. Digit Span.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) of the Task Scores for each Sample.
| MEASURE | SAMPLE | MEAN | SD | RANGE | SKEW | KURTOSIS | α |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reading Span | |||||||
| memory | Portuguese | 0.69 | 0.18 | 0.00–0.98 | –1.04 | 1.44 | 0.86 |
| Brazilian | 0.65 | 0.19 | 0.00–0.98 | –1.02 | 1.82 | 0.87 | |
| processing | Portuguese | 0.79 | 0.16 | 0.07–0.93 | –3.05 | 9.85 | |
| Brazilian | 0.67 | 0.15 | 0.00–0.87 | –1.97 | 4.97 | ||
| Symmetry Span | |||||||
| memory | Portuguese | 0.60 | 0.20 | 0.10–0.98 | –0.21 | –0.82 | 0.87 |
| Brazilian | 0.49 | 0.20 | 0.08–0.92 | 0.04 | –0.75 | 0.87 | |
| processing | Portuguese | 0.93 | 0.08 | 0.51–1.00 | –2.56 | 7.91 | |
| Brazilian | 0.87 | 0.12 | 0.49–1.00 | –1.67 | 2.43 | ||
| Digit Span | |||||||
| memory | Portuguese | 0.63 | 0.12 | 0.32–0.94 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.83 |
| Brazilian | 0.59 | 0.14 | 0.10–0.91 | –0.27 | 0.59 | 0.86 | |
[i] Note. Scores were computed based on the accuracy in each task component (memory and processing).
Table 3
Correlations Across Tasks per Sample. Values Below and Above the Diagonal Represent the Portuguese and the Brazilian Sample, Respectively.
| MEASURE | READING SPAN | SYMMETRY SPAN | DIGIT SPAN |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reading Span | 0.259 | 0.337 | |
| Symmetry Span | 0.417 | 0.318 | |
| Digit Span | 0.463 | 0.409 |
Table 4
Fit Indices for the Multigroup CFA testing for Configural, Metric and Scalar Invariance between the Portuguese and Brazilian Samples.
| FIT INDICES | MODEL TEST OF INVARIANCE | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| CONFIGURAL | METRIC | SCALAR | |
| χ2 | 0.000 | 1.156 | 8.975 |
| Df | 0 | 2 | 4 |
| Δχ2 | 1.156 | 7.819 | |
| p-value (Δ χ2) | .561 | .020* | |
| CFI | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.962 |
| Δ CFI | 0.0 | 0.038 | |
| RMSEA | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.084 |
| Δ RMSEA | 0.0 | 0.084 | |
| BIC | –818.03 | –828.58 | –832.47 |
[i] Note. Df = degrees of freedom. * Significant decrease in model fit compared to the configural model.
Figure 2
One-Factor Model of Working Memory Capacity with Standardized Loadings for the two Samples.