The articles from the review (as far as I've scanned them) seem to take a common view of static typing, but the studies themselves are obviously weak. There's a

The articles from the review (as far as I've scanned them) seem to take a common view of static typing, but the studies themselves are obviously weak. There's almost no way to test such statements, because how are you going to generalize that? Some studies use restricted tasks, which would provides some indication of the usefulness of static typing for e.g. beginners, but then the reviewer starts mixing up all kinds of problems and concepts. E.g., who cares that there's more variation between programmers than between languages? To use that review as an authoritative statement is ingenuous, to say the least.