Reply to the Commentaries on the Math-Fact Retrieval Hypothesis.

Geary and Wigfield and Brynes (this issue) point out a number of limitations of the math-fact retrieval hypothesis that we agree with. For instance, we acknowledge that whereas the correlational evidence we offer in our article (this issue) provides suggestive evidence for a link between math-fact retrieval and gender differences in math test performance, that evidence is not compelling. We also acknowledge that even if it is the case that math-fact retrieval is one of the cognitive mechanisms responsible for the gender differences in math performance, there are still many aspects of gender differences in math performance that need to be understood. We also point out a number of areas where we disagree. Most prominently, we do not believe that the spatial cognition hypothesis or affective/motivational hypotheses account for two significant literatures-gender differences in test performance and gender differences in grade performance. We discuss the basis for our beliefs and close with a discussion of the need for intervention research that will resolve some of the issues discussed in the series of articles in this issue. At the end of the article we also present a very speculative hypothesis that would knit together all of the positions presented in the articles in this issue of CEP. Copyright 1999 Academic Press.