Performance differences between White, Black and Hispanic students

(1)

Rochester Institute of Technology

RIT Scholar Works

Theses Thesis/Dissertation Collections

9-1-1996

Performance differences between White, Black and

Hispanic students

Jessica Gebhardt

Follow this and additional works at:http://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Thesis/Dissertation Collections at RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please [email protected].

Recommended Citation

(2)

Performance Differences

Performance Differences Between

White, Black and Hispanic Students

on the Timed Subtests of the WISC-HI

Jessica L. Gebhardt

Rochester Institute of _Technology

(3)

Rochester Institute of TechnoloJrr

Wallace Library Post Office Box 9887

Rochester, New York 14623-0887 716-475·2562 Fax 716-475-6490

SAMPLE stat~1mentsto reproduce

an

RIT thesis:

t'cftMISSION GRANTED

Title of thesis _

I c - ' - . _ .. .' ._. __. '" ... _ ..' _ _ hereby~rant permission to the Wallace Memorial Library of the Rochester Institute of Technology to reproduce my. thesis in whole or in part. Any reproduction will not be for commercial use or profit.

Date: Signature of Author:

PERMISSION FROM AUTHOR REQUIRED

Title of thesis

p.pr-fr1r/,~.~-A-

n

u

jJ

!'ffp-f'i

n~.s

I3...erWl Li"-, h)ky;k)

I.S

I

~Lk.

a n

tiL

I-h

t-rpa.

n

I 'C \ ft-1AoLR.!v

S

D!1..

7hA

I t

f1...L<2-

d

~rl

A

b+e

r

+- \'

of

'71-,.JL

U

)I(

Ft -

II (

I Jessica L.Gebhardt prefer to be contacted each time a request for reproduction is made. I can be reached at the following address:

PHONE: (7//.c.)r.ol.o~--O~Lj

0

")"" ....? .

qlr2.Jf

/(;6

':.,...

~~:

..-." ,. .' '- ....

~I . - • •

---~--- ---'.---PERMISSION DEt\IED

Trtle of thesis _

i

hereby deny permission to the Wallace

Memorial Library of the Rochester Institute of Technology to reproduce my thesis in whole or in part.

(4)

Performance Differences 1

Abstract

A major criticism ofintelligence tests is that _they are biased against ethnic

minority groups. The purpose of this _study was to examine whether

culturally different values affect the performance of ethnic _minority students

onthese standardizedtests. The records of21 White, 34 Black and 18 Hispanic

students who had beengiven the WISC-HI were selected and scores on the

timed subtests were compared. No significant differences were found

between the _White, Black and Hispanic groups on the basis of the overall

Performance Scale _IQ scores. _However, the White

students' scores on the

Verbal Scalewere _{significantly higher} than those ofthe Black and Hispanic

students. Individual analysis of each timed subtest revealed three subtests

(Picture Arrangement, Block Design, and _Arithmetic) on which White

students obtained _{significantly higher} scores than did Black/Hispanic

students. The findings were inconclusive and tended to support previous

(5)

2

Ethnic differences in measured cognitive abilities have been found

since intelligence tests were invented. The debate over the _meaning of these

differences is

largely

responsible for the _controversy over intelligence _testing

itself (Herrnstein & _Murray, _1994, p.270). The

finding

that Black students tend to score on average 15-18 points below White students is notin question.

What is contested is the reason for this discrepancy. _Why does the average

Blackstudent obtain a mean _IQ score of_85, the average Hispanicstudent

90-95, and the average White student 100 _(Lynn, 1992)?

There are two major perspectives on this question. Genetic theorists

focus on the high

heritability

ofintelligence (Jensen & _Reynolds, _{1982; Lynn,}

1991, 1992; Naglieri &_{Jensen, 1987;} Reynolds & Kaiser, 1990); that_is, the

amount of_IQ variance due to genetic endowment. Itis impossible to _deny

the existence of a genetic componentin intelligence. The _controversy

surrounds the question of the extentto which genetic factors contribute to

intelligence. _{Environmentalists,} on the other hand, focus on non-genetic

factors, such as bias within the testitself, bias within the _testing situation,

environmental and economic disadvantage of _many Black and Hispanic

families, and the experience of_being a _minority _(Bernal, _{1990; Brody,} _1987;

Mercer, 1988; Scarr & Weinberg, 1976; Schiele, 1991; Seligman, 1992).

Typically, most researchers agree thatboth genetics and environment

contribute to intellectual _ability to some degree. The debate continues on

how much each factor contributes.

(6)

3

intelligence tests _{may be biased} inseveral ways. Constructbias exists

whenever a test _purporting to measure a single construct in fact, measures

different constructs for different groups or when it measures the same

constructbutwith

differing

degrees of accuracy. An example ofthis type of

bias, provided

by

Bond _(1981), exists whena test that purports to measure

intelligence contains words to which some _{group has} been exposed more

than others. A second form of internal testbias discussed in the literature is

when an item on a test is more difficult for members of one _group than

another, otherwise known as content bias. _According to Reynolds and Kaiser

(1990), this type ofbias exists whenthe _wording ofa test questionis

unfamiliar to _minority children so that although _they _may know the correct

answer_they are unable to respond because _they did not understand the

question. A third type ofinternal biasis related to predictive or

criterion-related validity. The important questionhere is: Do the tests predict

performance _equally well for whites andblacks? As explained _by Neisser et

al. (1996), bias exists when Black performance on a _variable, such as school

achievement and college _GPA, is _{systematically higher} than the same

subjects'

test scores predicted. It is _generally thought that this is the most

important area of consideration. Research has not supported the existence of

bias in _any ofthese three areas (Bernal, _{1990; Bond, 1981;} _Cole, _1981;

Herrnstein & Murray, 1994; Reynolds & _{Kaiser, 1990;} _Sattler, _1992; _Seligman,

1992).

Second, there is mixed evidence with regard to biases external to the

(7)

4

examiner _effects, and deficiencies in_test-taking skills. Research on _coaching

effects, _specifically the effectiveness of commercial _coaching schools to

increase students'

performance on standardized _tests, such as the SAT, has revealed inconsistent results _(Bond, 1981). Race of examiners has not been

found to affect Black _{children's performance} _(Herrnstein _& _{Murray, 1994;}

Sattler, 1992) or _Hispanic _{children's performance} _(Sattler, _1992). _Test

"language"

has been criticized as biased in favor of _majority cultures.

Cultural bias was found to be a problem in_IQ _testing with non-English

speaking or English as a second language testees _(Bernal, _1990; Herrnstein &

Murray, 1994; Seligman, 1992). _Finally, deficiencies in _test-taking skills have

been suggestedtobe another area of external testbias. _According to Sattler

(1992), ethnic minorities _may be deficientin the _ability to _employ _test-taking

skills such as _{problem-solving} strategies or _balancing speedwith accuracy.

Specifically, some minorities _may not view the _testing experience as a time to

achieve.

Minority cultural values, social _{customs, perceptions,} behavioral _roles, social interactions and language usage are often different than those ofthe

majority culture. Assimilation into the _majority culture _may be difficult for

these reasons. Perhaps some of these differences also underlie the cultural

differences in intelligence test scores (Bernal, _{1990; Boykin, 1983;}

Diaz-Guerrero, 1987; Irvine, 1986; Neisseret _al., 1996).

Manyresearchers propose that knowledge of cultural _differences will

aid professionals in _assessing the performance of students from different

cultural backgrounds (Boykin, 1983; Nuttall, Leon & Valle, 1990; Rotheram &

(8)

5

values and practices of White _American, Black _American, and Hispanic

American students. In mainstream _U.S., children are socialized to be

independent and competitive. Competition and time are _valued; events are

tightly scheduled. In _contrast, Hispanic and Mexican-American children are

taught to be _obedient, _cooperative, and dependent (Diaz-Guerrero, _1987;

Knight & _{Kagan, 1982;} Nuttall et _al., _1990; Rotheram & Phinney, 1987; Wenar,

1994). Cooperationis valued and time is flexible. Hispanics follow

polychrome time where _many activities happen at once and stress is placed

upon completion of activities rather than adherence to preset schedules

(Nuttal et _al., 1990). For example in schools, parents are often late for

appointments and have

difficulty

_{understanding} that meetings with teachers

occur on a tightschedule. _{Diaz-Guerrero} ₍₁₉₈₇₎ reported that the _activity

level is lower and time seems to pass more _slowly for the Mexican than the

Anglo-American child and _thus, Mexican children see less movement and

have longer reaction times in test situations. Rotheram and _Phinney (1987)

also report that time is slower and more present-oriented for Mexican

Americans than Anglo Americans. Bernal ₍₁₉₉₀₎ found that _minority

children who were

highly

anxious about _being tested performed well on math problems when _they were allowed to pace themselves without time

pressure.

Black children are taught dependence on

family

and _community and a

deep sense of_{family kinship} (Boykin, 1983; Nuttal et _al., 1990).

Conformity

and interpersonal relationships in school are _top priorities. Like _Hispanics,

Black children tend to have flexible and approximate concepts of time and

(9)

6

time are governed

by

a subjective rather than objective reality. Time does not

move _{unidirectionally} from the past to the _future; it is elastic _(Boykin, 1983).

For example, the length of a given month can _vary as a function of the

relevant activities contained within it. Time is _socially oriented and not

rigidly bound byclocks and calendars.

Irvine ₍₁₉₈₆₎ suggested that rates of performance on intellectual

measures _among Blacks are depressed due to a _propensity to avoid

intellectual competition. He suggests a _{self-fulfilling} prophecy: a _group

stereotype that Blacks perform _poorly on intellectual tasks inhibits further

effective performance _(Irvine, 1986). Blacks compete _vigorously _only in areas

where _they have a modicum of success such as sports and entertainment.

Smither and Houston ₍₁₉₉₂₎ suggest that the interpersonal nature of

competitiveness implies that it is tied to an individual's actual or perceived

social environment. In environments where _they feel successful, Blacks

compete; if _theyperceive failure, _they do not compete.

Vernon ₍₁₉₈₃₎ proposed that individual differences in intelligence

may, to some _extent, be the result ofdifferences in the _efficiency or speed with

which individuals can perform the basic components of

information-processing (encoding, short-term _memory _processing, and long-term _memory

retrieval). These components, _specifically speed of short-term _memory

scanning and speed of retrieval of information from long-term memory, are

measured _by timed tasks on the WISCTII. Lynn & Holmshaw (1990)

concluded in their _study that about one-third of the White advantage on

(10)

7

implies that White children _{may have} an advantage on subtests which

require fast information_processing, _{such as} _is _the case on timed subtests.

According to researchers, children acquire ethnic behavior patterns as

part oftheir ethnic _identity _(Boykin, _1983; Neisseret _al., _1996; Nuttal et al.,

1990; Rotheram & _{Phinney, 1987; Wenar,} 1994). Hispanic and Black children

tend to be more cooperative and have a less flexible concept of time than

White children who are more competitive and adhere to rigid time

schedules. Based on these identified _{differences among} _White, Black, and

Hispanic cultures, the differences in performance _among these three groups

on the timed subtests ofthe WISC-III were investigated.

Method

Subjects

All students included in this _study were enrolled in an inner _city

elementary school _consisting of kindergarten through sixth grade located in a

city of_{approximately} 230,356 (World Almanac, 1990 Census) in Upstate New

York. In the year inwhich the _studywas conducted, district records indicated

that _{approximately 72.5} percent ofthe student population was _Black, 14.4

percentwas White, and 13 percent was Hispanic. The records of 21 _White, 34

Black, and 18 Hispanicstudents were included. All students selected were

classified as disabled _according to Part 200 Regulations of the Commissioner

of Education in New York State. Fifty-eight ofthe students were enrolled in

full-time special education placements, and fifteen were mainstreamed in

regular education. Records of all students enrolled at that time in special

(11)

8

Educable

Mentally

Retarded _(EMR) were excluded in an attemptto control for

factors other than culture (suchas low cognitive _ability) that _may influence

Performance Scale scores. _However, records were included of children

classified as EMR if _they were enrolled in non-EMR (mainstreamed into

regular education classrooms or included in special education classrooms

designated as _Learning_Disabled,

Emotionally

_Disturbed orSpeech Impaired)

classrooms. Scores ontimed subtests and the race of each student were

recorded.

Measures

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children

-III _(Wechsler, ₁₉₉₁₎ The

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children III _(WISC-III) is a _widely used

measure of general cognitive _ability forchildren aged 6 to 17. The test is

divided into two scales. The Verbal Scale measures skill levels in language

related intellectual functioning. The Performance Scale is a measure of non

verbal intellectual functioning. The WISCTII is well-standardized with

excellent reliability. The three scales have internal _consistency _reliability

coefficients of .96 for the Full Scale IQ, .95 for the Verbal Scale IQ, and .91 for

the Performance Scale _{IQ (Sattler,} 1992). The WISC-III has adequate

concurrent, construct, and predictive validity. Concurrent validity study

results are as follows: 1) concurrent _validity correlations between the

WISC-III and the WISC-R were .90 for theVerbal Scale, .81 for thePerformance

Scale, and .89 for the Full Scale; 2) concurrentvalidity correlations between

the WISC-III and the WAIS-R were .90 for the Verbal Scale, .80 for the

(12)

correlations between the WISC-III and the WPPSI-R were .85 for the Verbal

Scale, .73 for the Performance Scale, _and

.85 forthe Full Scale (Sattler, 1992).

Procedure

Testprotocols for each student selected for this _study were reviewed

from the student's school records. _{The Full Scale} _IQ _score, Verbal Scale _IQ

score, Performance Scale_IQ _score, scores on all timed subtests (Picture

Arrangement, Object _Assembly, Block _{Design, Arithmetic,} Symbol _Search,

Coding, and_Mazes) and the race of the student were recorded. The Verbal

Scale _IQ score was prorated after _removing the Arithmetic subtest score as it is

the _only timed subtestincluded on the Verbal Scale. All scores obtained _by

Black and Hispanic students were compared to those of the White students

(however, Black and Hispanic scores were not compared with each other

because the _study is _{investigating}whether White students score higher than

Black and Hispanic students; the _relationship between Black and Hispanic

students'

scores was not the focus of the study). No _identifying information

was gathered.

Results

Although the meanPerformance _IQ score ofWhite students (x =

88.90) was higherthan that ofBlack (5c = _82.00) _and Hispanic_students (x =

88.17), the differences were not significant(White/Black t (70) =

1.79,p_=.08, r =

.21; White/Hispanic t(70) =

.05,p_=.96, r=.006). However, White students had

significantly higher scores on the Verbal Scale than Blackstudents, t (66) =

2.07, p_=.042, r=.25; and Hispanicstudents, t (66)=

2.25, p_=.028, r=

.27. The

(13)

10

and 76.82 forHispanic students. _Table ₁ _{shows comparisons} _between White

and Black students and _Table ₂ _{shows comparisons} _{between White} _and

Hispanic students.

Insert Tables 1 and 2abouthere

Scores ofWhite students were compared with those of Black and

Hispanic students on each ofthe individual timed subtests (Picture

Completion, Coding, Picture _Arrangement, Block _Design, Object _Assembly,

Symbol _Search, _Mazes, and Arithmetic). The performance of White students

was _{significantly} better on one of the eight timed subtests, Arithmetic, than

that ofthe _Black, t ₍₆₆₎=_2.79,

p_=.0068, r

-.32 or oftheHispanicstudents, t(66)

=_2.09,

=.04, r=.25. The performance ofWhite students was

significantly

better than thatofthe Black students ontwo additional subtests

-Picture

Arrangement, t₍₆₆₎ =

2.19,=.032, r=.26 andBlock _Design, t₍₆₄₎=_2.66,

p_=.0099, r=.32. Itshould be notedthatbecause of_{missing data} instudent

records, the total number of subjects is not equal on each of the individual

timed subtests. The two subtests administered to the fewestsubjects were

Symbol Search and _Mazes, subtests that are not required for the computation

ofthe Performance _{Scale. IQ} score. The complete results for comparisons

between White and Black students on each subtest are displayed in Table 3

and between White and Hispanic students are in Table 4.

(14)

11

Discussion

The current _study compared the WISC-III Performance _IQ scores, the

timed portion of _{the measure,} of three _culturally different groups of _students,

White, Black and _Hispanic, to determine whether time limits on

standardized tests affect _minority children whose cultures do not emphasize

awareness of time constraints in the _way that the _majority culture does. This

study found no significant differences on the WISC-III Performance Scale

scores between_White, Black and Hispanic students. _Rather, on average

White students had significantly higher Verbal Scale scores than both Black

and Hispanic students.

Analysis oftimed subtest scores between the three groups yielded

inconsistent results. One subtest, Arithmetic (A), was _{significantly higher} for

White than for Black and Hispanic children and _{two subtests,} Picture

Arrangement _(PA) and Block Design (BD) were _{significantly higher} for White

than for Black children. Certain subtests on the Performance _Scale, such as

Coding and Symbol Search, are _closely tied to the child's _ability towork

quickly (Sattler, 1992). Ifminority children were penalized _by time limits,

their scores would be expected tobe _{significantly} lower on these subtests than

on other subtests on the Performance Scale. This was not _{the case,} however.

Although there were time bonuses for rapid, correct completion of test items

given on the three timed subtests on which white students scored

significantly higher (A, PA, and BD), the scores achieved on these

subtests were more dependent upon the measured abilities of the tasks than

the _ability to work quickly. For example, ifa child had

difficulty

with

mathematics but tended to solve problems _quickly, the _ability to work

(15)

12

would not enable the child to achieve a high score on this subtest. It would be

theknowledge of mathematics concepts that was _being assessed.

In _{addition, the} difference in abilities as compared to White students

between Blackand Hispanic students was unexpected. In minority cultures,

such as Black and _Hispanic, which do not emphasize competition and

working quickly, one would expect similar performance between the groups

on timed tasks. This was notthe case, however. Hispanic students'

scores

only differed significantly from whites on one subtest, whereas black

students'

scores differed _{significantly} on three subtests. Time constraints _may

have played a part in this significant _difference, but it is _likely that another

factor or factors was _affectingblack students lowerperformance on the

Performance Scale subtests.

The results of the present _study were in agreement with previous

findings that have failed to find intelligence tests biased against _minority

children (Bernal, _{1990; Bond, 1981; Cole, 1981;} Herrnstein & _Murray, _1994;

Reynolds & _{Kaiser; Sattler, 1992; Seligman,} 1992). It is possible that a

significant difference between Performance scores was not found because

other factors (i.e. socioeconomic _{status) that} have been known to influence

intelligence test scores were controlled. It is _generally reported that the higher

a person's _SES, the higher the intelligence score (Jensen & _{Reynolds, 1982;}

Lynn, 1992; Mercer, 1988; Scarr & Weinberg, 1976; Seligman, 1992). Vincent

(1991) reported thatIQ differences between Blackand White children are

declining. _IQ differences are not significant when SES is controlled (Vincent,

1991). In the year in which the _study was conducted, the Home School

(16)

districtin which the _studywas conducted indicated thatout of the 991

students enrolled at the _elementary _school, 768 were home school students

and 223 of them attended from other areas in the city. No students attended

from urban or suburbanschool districts outside of the city. Ofthe 223

students who came from other schools in the city, 139 of them were classified

with a

handicapping

condition. Ofthe 768 home school students who attend

the home school, _only 46 were classified with a

handicapping

condition.

Therefore, itwas not possible to conclude that the 73 subjects included in this

study were from the same homogenous area of the city. However, all 73

subjects were from districts within the _city and it was _likely that the

homogeneity

ofSES ofthe _city school districts was more similar than ifa

number of subjects were from school districts outside ofthe city. Further

investigation into the location and SES of the home school districts of each

subject would be necessary to conclude thatSES was a controlled variable in

this study.

A second explanation for the lack of a significantdifference between

Performance scores _{may be} that researchhas consistently found that students

disadvantaged_bythe language of_testing(standard English) typically score

higher on the performance than on the verbal subtests of the WISC-III

(Neisser, 1996). Sattler ₍₁₉₉₂₎ described the differences between Black English

and standard English. Although Black English shares _many of the language

features with standard _English, it has a numberof distinct features that

qualify it as a _fully formed linguistic system with its own_{rules, grammar,} and

(17)

14

communication between the examiner and Hispanic-American children who

often speak Spanish. _Also, _Hispanic children who are bilingual often speak a

complex mixture of both English and Spanish and never become proficient in

either_language.

The _{generalizibility} ofthe current study's findings was limited _by a

number offactors. All participants were selected from a single urban,

elementary school setting. Future research _may expand selection to include a

variety of geographic regions and age levels. Students involved in this _study

were all classified as disabled _accordingto Part 200 of the Regulations of the

Commissioner ofEducation of New York State and most received their

educationin special education placements. The fact that a portion of the

students selected were mainstreamed into regular, education _may have been a

confounding variable. The number of students within _{the classroom,}

amount of individual teacher instruction and attention received _by the

student and amount of social interaction with non-handicapped peers differ

between special and regular education classrooms. _Any of these variables

may have had an effect on a student's performance on standardized tests.

Future studies _involving regular education (non-classified) and

gifted/talented students _may then serve as a comparison. The sample size of

this _study was _relatively small, _limiting the _{generalizibility} of results. In

addition, further research that seeks to _identify patterns of performance on

(18)

15

REFERENCES

Bernal, E.M. (1990).

Increasing

the _{interpretative validity} and diagnostic

utility of_hispanic children's scores on tests of achievement and

intelligence. In F.C. _Serafica, A.I. _Schwebel, R.K. _Russell, P.D. _Isaac, &

L.B. Myers (eds.), Mental health of ethnic minorities (pp.108-138).

New York: Praeger.

Bond, L. (1981). Bias in mental tests. In B.F. Green _(ed.), Issues in testing:

Coaching, disclosure, and ethnicbias (pp.55-75). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass Inc.

Boykin, A.W. (1983). The academic performance of afro-american children.

In J.T. Spence _(ed.), Achievement and achievement motives:

Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 338-347). SanFrancisco:

W.H. Freeman & Co.

Brody, N. (1987). _Jensen, _Gottfredson, and the black-white difference in

intelligence test scores. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 507-508.

Cole, N.S. (1981). Bias intesting. American Psychologist. 36. 1067-1077.

Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1987). Historical sociocultural premises and ethnic

socialization. In J.S. _Phinney & M.J. Rotheram (eds.), Children's ethnic

socialization: Pluralism and development (pp. 242-249). _Newbury _Park,

CA: Sage Publications.

Herrnstein, R.J. & Murray, CM. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class

structure in american life. New York: The Free Press.

Irvine, R.W. (1986). Education in the post-integration era. Journal of Negro

(19)

16

Jensen, A.R. &_Reynolds, C.R. (1982). _Race, social class and _ability patterns on

theWISC-R. _Personality and Individual Differences, 3, 423-438.

Knight, G.P. &_Kagan, S. (1982). _Siblings, birth order, and

cooperative-competitive social behavior. _Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13,

239-249.

Lynn, R. (1991). Race differences in intelligence: Aglobal perspective. The

Mankind Quarterly. 31. 255-296.

Lynn, R. (1992). Intelligence: _Ethnicity and culture. In J. _Lynch, C. Modgil, &

S. Modgil _(eds.), Cultural _diversity and the schools (pp. 361-375).

London: The Falmer Press.

Lynn, R. & Holmshaw, M. (1990). Black-white differences in reaction times

and intelligence. Social Behavior and Personality, 18, 299-308.

Mercer, J.R. (1988). Ethnic differences in _IQ scores: Whatdo _they mean? (A

response to Lloyd Dunn). Hispanic Tournal of Behavioral Sciences. 10,

199-218.

Naglieri, J.A. &Jensen, A.R. (1987). Comparison ofblack-white differences

on the WISC-R and the K-ABC: Spearman's hypothesis. Intelligence.

1121-43.

Neisser, U.; Boodoo, G.; Bouchard, T.J.; Boykin, A.W.; Brody, N.; Ceci, S.J.;

Halpern, D.F.; Loehlin, J.C.; Perloff, R.; Sternberg, R.J. & Urbina, S.

(1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist.

(20)

Nuttall, E.V., De _{Leon, B.,} &Valle, M. (1990). Bestpractices in_considering

cultural _factors. _In_{A. Thomas & J.} _Grimes _(eds.), Bestpractices in

school _psychology -IT (pp. 219-233). Washington, DC: National

Association of School Psychologists.

Reynolds, C.R. & _Kaiser, S.M. (1990). Test bias in psychological assessment.

In T.B. Gutkin & C.R. Reynolds _(eds.), Handbook of School _Psychology

(pp. 487-525). NewYork: Wiley.

Rotheram, M.J. & _Phinney, J.S. (1987). Ethnic behavior patterns as an aspect

of identity. In J.S. _Phinney & M.J. Rotheram _(eds.), Children's ethnic

socialization: Pluralism and development (pp. 201-207). _Newbury _Park,

CA: Sage Publications.

Sattler, J.M. (1992). Assessment of children (3rd ed.). San Diego: Author.

Scarr, S. & _Weinberg, R.A. (1976). _IQ testperformance of black children

adopted _bywhite families. In J.V. McConnell & D.W. Gorenflo _(eds.),

Classic Readings in _Psychology (pp. 184-198). Chicago: _{Holt, Rinehart,}

& Winston, Inc.

Schiele, J.H. (1991). An epistemological perspective on intelligence

assessment _among African american children. The Tournal of Black

Psychology, 17,23-36.

Seligman, D. (1992). A question of intelligence: The IO debate in america.

NewYork: Birch Lane Press.

Smither, R.D. & Houston, J.M. (1992). The nature of competitiveness: The

development and validation of the competitiveness index.

(21)

18

Vernon, P.A. (1983). Speed of information _processing and general

intelligence. Intelligence. _ 53-70.

Vincent, K.R. (1991). Black/white _IQ differences: Does age make the

difference? Tournal of Clinical Psychology, 47, 266-270.

Wenar, C. (1994). Developmental psychopathology: From _infancy through

(22)

19

Table 1

Mean Performance Scale and Verbal Scale IO Scores on the WISC-III for

Comparison between White and Black Students

White Black t p_ I

Performance Scale

N 21 34 1.79 .08 .21

X 88.90 82.00

SD 17.16 12.03

Verbal Scale

(minus Arithmetic)

N 19 33

X 87.16 78.97

SD 16.41 11.43

[image:22.577.70.495.119.439.2]

(23)

Table 2

Mean Performance Scale and Verbal Scale IO Scores on the WISC-III for

Comparison between White and Hispanic Students

White Hispanic t _g

Performance Scale

N 21 18 .05 .96

X 88.90 88.17

S_D 17.16 12.77

.006

Verbal Scale

(minus Arithmetic)

N 19 17

X 87.16 76.82

SD 16.41 14.73

[image:23.577.67.503.102.482.2]

(24)

Table 3

Mean Timed Subtest Scores on the WISC-III for White and Black Students

White Picture Completion N 19 X 8.42 3.27

Coding

N 19 X 7.68 SD 3.53 Picture Arrangement N 19 X 8.63 SD 4.62 Block Design N 18 X 8.94 SD 4.24 Object _Assembly N 19 X 7.68 SD 3.82 Symbol Search N_ 5 X 8.40

SD - 6.58

Mazes N_ 5 X 8.80 SD 2.68 Arithmetic N 19 X 8.00 SD 2.92

Black t -P- r

33 .86 .40 .11

7.61

3.32

33 -.43 .67 .05

8.09

2.69

33 2.19 .032 .26

6.36

3.09

32 2.66 .0099 .32

6.34

2.88

33 .92 .36 .11

6.79

3.31

10 -.56 .58 .13

9.50

2.32

6 -1.25 .23 .33

10.83

2.64

33 2.79 .0068 .32

5.97

[image:24.577.70.487.131.704.2]

(25)

[image:25.577.70.491.130.695.2]

Table 4

Mean Timed Subtest Scores on the WISC-III for White and Hispanir Students

White Picture Completion N 19 X 8.42 SS 3.27 Coding N 19 X 7.68 SD 3.53 Picture Arrangement N 19 X 8.63 SD 4.62 Block Design N 18 X 8.94 SD 4.24 Object _Assembly N 19 X 7.68 SD 3.82 Symbol Search N 5 X 8.40 SD 6.58 Mazes N_ 5 X 8.80 SJ2 2.68 Arithmetic N 19 X 8.00 SD 2.92 Hispanic 17 7.71 3.26 17 8.41 4.05 17 7.47 3.20 17 8.53 2.98 17 7.88 .68 7 5.57 1.99 5 7.60 2.70 17 6.24 3.03 t .65 .52 -.60 .55 .97 .36 .08 .07 .12

.37 .71 .05

-.18 .86 .02

1.34 .20 .29

.71 .50 .19

(26)

o cn CD o (0 cd o o CO CO o CO 15 ja L. CD > T3 C CO CD o c CO E o a. c CO CD 0 CJ W 75 fi CD > o 'c ca Q. GO 0) CO o CO o CO 2 IE J.. CD o CO CD o c CD E _. o t cu CL

o CO CO <t CJ o 00 CD "3"

C\J o

a> 00 CO 00 00 00 r-~ 1^- r- h- (^

(27)

I o en CD O CO *-CO CD +> n 3 cn a CD E P CD C o CO CD i_ o o cn CO CD H c CO CD c g. 'co CD Q JsC O O m c CD E CD c CD CD d. C O O c o HI Q. E o O cd i O CL o "c CD D. C0 CO CO 4-* H 3 CO o CD E _ _ CD

O) 00 co in -^ co cvj

(28)

I o cn CD o CO +-CO CD ** n cn T3 CD E \-CD C o CO CD k. o o cn ** CO CD H c CO CD o 0 E o CO _c 0

frl CD

O-2 w 0 uQ X 3 _ CO o CO o CD 0 E H JZ o CD 0 0 CO JO o .J-J F M >, CO -Q E 0 co CO < o 0 -7 O

CJ 00 CO -t

ajoos peieos

Theses

Thesis/Dissertation Collections