For a long time, the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) has served as a standardized test for academically measuring all potential abilities when debate still ensues on its reliability as an indicator of cognitive ability. Some researchers assert that the SAT is a good predictor of academic performance. In contrast, others contend that it is mainly advantageous to people from privileged backgrounds yet does not encompass critical cognitive skills such as critical thinking, creativity, and adaptability. This study examines the correlation between SAT scores and a broader range of cognitive abilities by analyzing the performance of 40 Saudi Arabian high school students on the Number Series Test (NST) and the Stroop Task—two assessments measuring numerical reasoning and cognitive flexibility, respectively. The findings indicate a moderate positive correlation between SAT scores and NST performance (r = 0.51) and between SAT scores and Stroop correct responses (r = 0.48), suggesting that numerical reasoning and executive function contribute to SAT success. In addition, the cognitive control aspect of the SAT's assessed cognitive abilities is evidenced in the correlation (r = -0.40) between the SAT and incorrect Stroop test responses. This correlation would indicate that the SAT is a good measure of cognitive ability.
Alkhazim, M. (2003). Higher education in Saudi Arabia: Challenges, solutions, and opportunities missed. International Journal of Educational Development, 23(3), 231-242.
Atkinson, R. C., & Geiser, S. (2009). Reflections on a century of college admissions tests. Educational Researcher, 38(9), 665-676.
Bachmann, P., & Palmer, R. (2022). The SAT and college readiness: A critical review. Journal of Educational Assessment, 19(2), 121-139.
Bridgeman, B., McCamley-Jenkins, L., & Ervin, N. (2004). Predictions of freshman grade?point average from the revised and recentered SAT I: Reasoning test. ETS Research Report Series, 2000(1), i-27.
Breland, H. M. (1977). Factors related to performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Test: A literature review. ETS Research Bulletin, 1977(2), 1-27.
Briggs, D. C. (2004). SAT coaching, bias, and causal inference. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2004(121), 29-38.
Buchmann, C., & Hannum, E. (2001). Education and stratification in developing countries: A review of theories and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 77-102.
Ceci, S. J. (1991). How much does schooling influence general intelligence and its cognitive components? A reassessment of the evidence. Developmental Psychology, 27(5), 703-722.
College Board. (2023). The SAT Suite of Assessments: Understanding scores.
Deary, I. J., Strand, S., Smith, P., & Fernandes, C. (2007). Intelligence and educational achievement. Intelligence, 35(1), 13-21.
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135-168.
Elder, C., & Davies, A. (1998). Performance on IELTS and secondary school achievement: Is there a relationship? IELTS Research Reports, 1, 52-72.
Frey, M. C., & Detterman, D. K. (2004). Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship between the Scholastic Assessment Test and general cognitive ability. Psychological Science, 15(6), 373-378.
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(1), 101-135.
Gonzalez, K., & Dunlop, J. (2023). Socioeconomic influences on standardized test performance: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 115(3), 512-527.
Halpern, D. F. (2012). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (4th ed.). Psychology Press.
Hannon, B., & McNaughton-Cassill, M. (2011). SAT performance: Understanding the role of anxiety and test familiarity. Educational Psychology, 31(1), 1-12.
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(1), 47-70.
Linn, R. L. (1990). Admissions testing: Recommended uses, validity, differential prediction, and coaching. Applied Measurement in Education, 3(4), 297-318.
Oshan, M. S. (2007). Education reform in Saudi Arabia: The case of standardization in curriculum development. Middle Eastern Studies, 43(2), 283-298.
Powers, D. E., & Rock, D. A. (1999). Effects of coaching on SAT I: Reasoning test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36(2), 93-118.
Primi, R., Ferrão, M. E., & Almeida, L. S. (2010). Fluid intelligence as a predictor of learning: A longitudinal multilevel approach applied to math. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(5), 446-451.
Reardon, S. F. (2013). The widening income achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 70(8), 10-16.
Sackett, P. R., Kuncel, N. R., Arneson, J. J., Cooper, S. R., & Waters, S. D. (2008). Does socioeconomic status explain the relationship between admissions tests and post-secondary academic performance? Psychological Science, 20(4), 447-453.
Sackett, P. R., Borneman, M. J., & Connelly, B. S. (2012). High?stakes testing in higher education and employment: Appraising the evidence for validity and fairness. American Psychologist, 67(4), 215-227.
Santelices, M. V., & Wilson, M. (2010). Unfair treatment? The case of standardized admissions tests. Educational Policy, 24(1), 1-39.
Smith, J., & Johnson, L. (2020). Standardized testing and college readiness: An evolving landscape. Journal of Higher Education Policy, 32(4), 445-462.
Snow, R. E., & Lohman, D. F. (1989). Implications of cognitive psychology for educational measurement. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 8(4), 7-19.
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The Rainbow Project: Enhancing the SAT through assessments of analytical, practical, and creative skills. Intelligence, 34(4), 321-350.
Warne, R. T. (2021). In the know: Debunking 35 myths about human intelligence. Cambridge University Press.
Hany, A., Mohamed, A., Mahmoud, M., Ayash, T., & Maayah, A. K. (2025). The Correlation between SAT Scores and Selected Cognitive Abilities among International School Students in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 15(2), 1016–1027.
Copyright: © 2025 The Author(s)
Published by HRMARS (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
