40,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Serie: Essentials of Psychological Assessment
- Sprache: Englisch
Thorough overview of the history, viewpoints, and research findings of bias in intelligence testing
Essentials of Evaluating Bias in Intelligence Testing delivers a comprehensive overview of potential biases that can come to light when making use of IQ tests across demographics, detailing where bias can work its way into IQ test selection, standardization, content, administration/scoring, and interpretation and providing key foundational knowledge on what IQ test bias is versus what it is not as well as the history of bias claims in recent decades.
Research findings are included throughout the book to provide key context. Some of the topics discussed in this book include:
- The Larry P. v. Wilson Riles trial decision of 1979, which prohibited the use of IQ tests for placing Black students in special education programs, and its carryover to today
- The heritability of IQ scores, the “nature/nurture” issue, and the role of IQ in the stratification of subpopulation groups in society
- Implicit assumptions within claims of standardization bias, including that all population subgroups must display equal mean scores and that racial/ethnic groups are internally homogeneous
Essentials of Evaluating Bias in Intelligence Testing is an essential read for educators, academics, and administrators seeking to understand the full picture on IQ testing and its validity or lack thereof across different demographics.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 829
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2025
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Table of Contents
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Preface
Acknowledgments
One Introduction and Overview
Two Sources of BIAS Claims in Intelligence Testing: A Brief History
Sources of IQ Test BIAS Claims
Counternarratives on Mental Test BIAS
Three BIAS and IQ Test Selection
The Fundamental Issue: Why are Tests of Intelligence Needed?
Different Perspectives on Factors that Contribute to a Good Individually Administered Test of General Mental Ability
Conclusions
Four BIAS and IQ Test Standardization
Complaints of Standardization BIAS from Intelligence Test Critics
What Happens During Intelligence Test Standardization?
A Direct Empirical Test of the Standardization Fallacy
Five BIAS and IQ Test Content
The Nature of Intelligence Test Content BIAS Claims
Implicit Assumptions within Claims of Content BIAS
Theory‐Based Criticisms of the English‐Language Content of IQ Tests
IQ Test Content and Selection for Non‐ or Limited‐English Speakers
Concluding Thoughts
Six BIAS and IQ Test Administration/Scoring
Presumed BIAS in the Examiner–Examinee Relationship
Presumed BIAS in Standardized Test Administration
Alternative Scoring Procedures
Conclusion
Seven BIAS and IQ Test Interpretation
Criticisms that Trivialize How IQ Test Content is Determined
Criticisms that Mischaracterize What IQ Test Items are Designed to Measure
Criticisms that Misrepresent Characteristics of IQ Scores
Criticisms that Distort How IQ Test Results are Presumably Used (and the Terrible Consequences that are Hypothesized to Inevitably Result)
What IQ Test Scores Ultimately Measure:
G
Versus the Specificity Doctrine
IQ Scores and the Thinking/Reasoning Abilities they Represent
Validity of IQ Scores
Eight IQ Test BIAS—What it is and What it is Not
Inadequate Conceptualizations of IQ Test BIAS
The Necessary Criteria for Studying Test BIAS
Adequate Definitions for Test BIAS
Content BIAS
Methods for Detecting Individual Item BIAS
Predictive BIAS Detection Methods
Construct BIAS Detection Methods
External Sources of IQ Test BIAS
Nine Select IQ Test BIAS Studies Since 1980
Concluding Thoughts
Ten Glossary of Essential Terms
Appendix A: Test Abbreviations
References
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Chapter 3
Table 3.1. WISC‐V Subtest g Loadings (and Correlations with g) Extracted Fro...
Chapter 4
Table 4.1. Ethnic Group Composition of the Original Subject Pool (Before Spl...
Table 4.2. Differential Ethnic Group Representation for Different (TAAS) Tes...
Table 4.3. Outcomes That Would Be Expected to Occur (see Table 4.2) If the S...
Table 4.4. Homogeneous Ethnic Group Representation for Different (TAAS) Test...
Chapter 5
Table 5.1. Select Items From “Intelligence” Tests Specifically Designed for ...
Table 5.2. Test Content Alterations for Examinees with Language Differences/...
Chapter 7
Table 7.1. WISC‐V Sum of Scaled Scores and Mean Subtest Scaled Scores Associated ...
Table 7.2. Raw Score Ranges Associated with WISC‐V FSIQs for Seven Subtests ...
Table 7.3. College Majors Ranked by Average Academic Aptitude Test Scores (A...
Table 7.4. Job Performance and Training Descriptions Associated with Wonderl...
Table 7.5. Predictive Validity of Intelligence (as Measured by the GATB) in ...
Table 7.6. Applicant Pool Wonderlica Means and Standard Deviations for 16 Sp...
Chapter 8
Table 8.1. US Health and Human Services 2024 Poverty Guidelines (for 48 Stat...
Tables 8.2. The Controlled Effects of Failing WISC‐V Vocabulary and/or Simil...
Tables 8.3. Consider the Following Data from a Fictitious 10–0‐Year‐Old Exa...
Tables 8.4. Consider the Following Data from a Fictitious 10 ‐0‐Year‐Old Ex...
Table 8.5. Ethnic Subgroup Subtest Means (In Bold) ± One Standard Deviation ...
Table 8.6. Black/White Differences in WISC‐V Subtest Mean Standard Scores, H...
Table 8.7. Dimensions for Differentiating “Culturally Loaded” Versus “Cultur...
Table 8.8. Fictitious Example of Nonbiased Versus Biased Items from a Simple...
Table 8.9. Mantel–Haenszel Two‐by‐Two Contingency Table for Each Score Range...
Table 8.10. Interpretations
a
for the Presence or Absence of Prediction Bias ...
Table 8.11. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fifth Edition (WISC‐V) ...
List of Illustrations
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1. Unobserved constructs (identified from factor analysis) responsi...
Chapter 5
Figures 5.1–5.4. Four scenarios from comparing item difficulty levels for si...
Figure 5.5. WISC‐V mean Vocabulary subtest raw scores from standardization s...
Figure 5.6. WISC‐V mean block design (w/time bonus) subtest raw scores from ...
Figure 5.7. Item characteristic curve (ICC; from Reynolds & Carson, 2005, p....
Figure 5.8. Effective and defective item characteristic curves.
Figure 5.9. Differential item functioning (DIF) for groups A and B on the sa...
Figure 5.10. Item characteristic curves (ICCs) for WISC‐V Vocabulary Subtest...
Figure 5.11. Item characteristic curves (ICCs) for WISC‐V Vocabulary Subtest ...
Figure 5.12. Item characteristic curves (ICCs) for WISC‐V Vocabulary Subtest...
Figure 5.13. The culture‐language interpretive matrix (C‐LIM; Rhodes et al.,...
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1. The System of Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment (SOMPA) Estim...
Figure 6.2. The increased unreliability of gain scores* (two standard errors...
Chapter 7
Figure 7.1. The eduction of relations and correlates.
Figure 7.2a. Figural matrices item (low difficulty; from RIOT labs, https://...
Figure 7.2b. Figural Matrices Item (medium difficulty; Raven's progressive m...
Figure 7.2c. Figural Matrices Item (high difficulty; Raven's progressive mat...
Figure 7.3. Coding item (Yerkes, 1921, p. 254; adapted from Warne, 2020, p. ...
Figure 7.4. The full domain of intelligence (adapted from Jensen, 1987, p. 1...
Figure 7.5. WISC‐V full IQ score age equivalent ranges for a hypothetical 10...
Figure 7.6. WISC‐V full scale IQ age equivalent ranges for a hypothetical 10...
Figure 7.7. Overall life chances at different ranges of the IQ normal curve ...
Chapter 8
Figure 8.1. Coefficient alpha calculated by averaging odds ratios for differ...
Figure 8.2. Visual illustration for a partial correlation.
Figure 8.3. Formula for calculating a partial correlation (association betwe...
Figure 8.4. (a–c) Bivariate scatterplots depicting positive, negative, and n...
Figures 8.5. (a–f) Correlational relationships between predictor (Variable X...
Figure 8.6. Errors in the prediction of
Y
based on
X
.
Figure 8.7. Graphical representation of the regression of Variable Y on Vari...
Figure 8.8. Effects of correcting for score unreliability on Y intercepts (f...
Figure 8.9. Comparing small and large standard errors of estimate.
Figure 8.10. Scatter diagram representations for the relationships between p...
Guide
Cover Page
Table of Contents
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Preface
Acknowledgments
Begin Reading
Appendix A: Test Abbreviations
References
Index
WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
Pages
ii
iii
iv
vii
ix
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
355
356
357
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
387
388
389
390
391
Essentials of Psychological Assessment Series
Series Editors, Alan S. Kaufman and Nadeen L. Kaufman
Essentials of CAS2 Assessmentby Jack A. Naglieri and Tulio M. Otero
Essentials of Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, Second Editionby Linda Wilmshurst
Essentials of Cognitive Assessment with KAIT and Other Kaufman Measuresby Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Debra Y. Broadbooks, and Alan S. Kaufman
Essentials of Conners Behavior Assessments™by Elizabeth P. Sparrow
Essentials of Creativity Assessmentby James C. Kaufman, Jonathan A. Plucker, and John Baer
Essentials of Cross‐Battery Assessment, Third Editionby Dawn P. Flanagan, Samuel O. Ortiz, and Vincent C. Alfonso
Essentials of DAS‐II® Assessmentby Ron Dumont, John O. Willis, and Colin D. Elliott
Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Interventionby Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling
Essentials of Evidence‐Based Academic Interventionsby Barbara J. Wendling and Nancy Mather
Essentials of Executive Functions Assessmentby George McCloskey and Lisa A. Perkins
Essentials of Forensic Psychological Assessment, Second Editionby Marc J. Ackerman
Essentials of Gifted Assessmentby Steven I. Pfeiffer
Essentials of IDEA for Assessment Professionalsby Guy McBride, Ron Dumont, and John O. Willis
Essentials of Individual Achievement Assessmentby Douglas K. Smith
Essentials of Intellectual Disability Assessment and Identificationby Alan W. Brue and Linda Wilmshurst
Essentials of KABC‐II Assessmentby Alan S. Kaufman, Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Elaine Fletcher‐Janzen, and Nadeen L. Kaufman
Essentials of KTEA™‐3 and WIAT®‐III Assessmentby Kristina C. Breaux and Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger
Essentials of MCMI®‐IV Assessmentby Seth D. Grossman and Blaise Amendolace
Essentials of Millon™ Inventories Assessment, Third Editionby Stephen Strack
Essentials of MMPI‐A™ Assessmentby Robert P. Archer and Radhika Krishnamurthy
Essentials of MMPI‐2® Assessment, Second Editionby David S. Nichols
Essentials of Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator® Assessment, Second Editionby Naomi L. Quenk
Essentials of NEPSY®‐II Assessmentby Sally L. Kemp and Marit Korkman
Essentials of Neuropsychological Assessment, Second Editionby Nancy Hebben and William Milberg
Essentials of Nonverbal Assessmentby Steve McCallum, Bruce Bracken, and John Wasserman
Essentials of PAI® Assessmentby Leslie C. Morey
Essentials of Planning, Selecting, and Tailoring Interventions for Unique Learnersby Jennifer T. Mascolo, Vincent C. Alfonso, and Dawn P. Flanagan
Essentials of Processing Assessment, Second Editionby Milton J. Dehn
Essentials of Psychological Assessment Supervisionby A. Jordan Wright
Essentials of Psychological Testing, Second Editionby Susana Urbina
Essentials of Response to Interventionby Amanda M. VanDerHeyden and Matthew K. Burns
Essentials of Rorschach® Assessmentby Tara Rose, Michael P. Maloney, and Nancy Kaser‐Boyd
Essentials of Rorschach Assessment: Comprehensive System and R‐PASby Jessica R. Gurley
Essentials of School Neuropsychological Assessment, Third Editionby Daniel C. Miller and Denise E. Maricle
Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification, Second Editionby Vincent C. Alfonso and Dawn P. Flanagan
Essentials of Stanford‐Binet Intelligence Scales (SB5) Assessmentby Gale H. Roid and R. Andrew Barram
Essentials of TAT and Other Storytelling Assessments, Second Editionby Hedwig Teglasi
Essentials of Temperament Assessmentby Diana Joyce
Essentials of Trauma‐Informed Assessment and Interventions in School and Community Settingsby Kirby L. Wycoff and Bettina Franzese
Essentials of Treatment Planning, Second Editionby Mark E. Maruish
Essentials of WAIS®‐IV Assessment, Second Editionby Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger and Alan S. Kaufman
Essentials of WISC®‐IV Assessment, Second Editionby Dawn P. Flanagan and Alan S. Kaufman
Essentials of WISC‐V® Assessmentby Dawn P. Flanagan and Vincent C. Alfonso
Essentials of WISC‐V Integrated Assessmentby Susan Engi Raiford
Essentials of WJ IV® Cognitive Abilities Assessmentby Fredrick A. Schrank, Scott L. Decker, and John M. Garruto
Essentials of WJ IV® Tests of Achievementby Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling
Essentials of WMS®‐IV Assessmentby Lisa Whipple Drozdick, James A. Holdnack, and Robin C. Hilsabeck
Essentials of WNV™ Assessmentby Kimberly A. Brunnert, Jack A. Naglieri, and Steven T. Hardy‐Braz
Essentials of Working Memory Assessment and Interventionby Milton J. Dehn
Essentials of WPPSI™‐IV Assessmentby Susan Engi Raiford and Diane L. Coalson
Essentials of WRAML2 and TOMAL‐2 Assessmentby Wayne Adams and Cecil R. Reynolds
Essentials of WRAML3 and EMS Assessmentby Wayne V. Adams, David V. Sheslow, and Trevor A. Hall
Essentials of Evaluating Bias in Intelligence Testingby Craig L. Frisby
Essentials of Evaluating Bias in Intelligence Testing
Craig L. Frisby
Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial intelligence technologies or similar technologies.
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.Published simultaneously in Canada.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per‐copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750‐8400, fax (978) 750‐4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748‐6011, fax (201) 748‐6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permission.
The manufacturer’s authorized representative according to the EU General Product Safety Regulation is Wiley‐VCH GmbH, Boschstr. 12, 69469 Weinheim, Germany, e‐mail: [email protected].
Trademarks: Wiley and the Wiley logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the United States and other countries and may not be used without written permission. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762‐2974, outside the United States at (317) 572‐3993 or fax (317) 572‐4002.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic formats. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site at www.wiley.com.
Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data
Names: Frisby, Craig L., author.Title: Essentials of evaluating bias in intelligence testing / Craig L. Frisby.Description: First edition. | Hoboken, New Jersey : Wiley, [2025] | Includes index.Identifiers: LCCN 2024031223 (print) | LCCN 2024031224 (ebook) | ISBN 9781394184477 (paperback) | ISBN 9781394184491 (adobe pdf) | ISBN 9781394184484 (epub)Subjects: LCSH: Intelligence tests–California. | African American students–California. | Discrimination in education–California. | Educational equalization–California. | California. Department of Education.Classification: LCC BF431 .F667 2025 (print) | LCC BF431 (ebook) | DDC 371.2601/3–dc23/eng/20240806LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2024031223LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2024031224
Cover Design: WileyCover Image: © Robert/Adobe Stock Photos
Preface
This volume – the first edition of Essentials of Evaluating Bias in Intelligence Testing – informs practitioners and clinicians of the wide variety of criticisms that have been levelled at individualized intelligence (IQ) testing throughout many decades. The text then systematically describes how intelligence testing has been criticized in test selection, test standardization, the determination of test content, test administration and scoring, and test interpretation.
Such criticisms are not new, as these have followed intelligence testing ever since its inception. However, when readers make the effort to delve deeply into the many particulars of bias accusations, they will find that most do not withstand empirical scrutiny. It is upon this foundation where the text reminds readers that the responsible evaluation of IQ test bias is built upon principles of empirical and statistical analyses, rather than from subjective impressions or ideological presuppositions. In addition, professionals who routinely use IQ tests in their work must be familiar with many of the problems inherent in ‘alternative’ assessment procedures that do not adhere to modern best practice standards of test usage and interpretation.
Individualized IQ test publishers take the issue of test bias seriously when developing their instruments, and the text walks readers through the steps that these companies follow to ensure that their instruments are as free of bias as is technically possible. To serve this end, the text provides numerous definitions for mental test bias, generally; and for content bias, item bias, construct bias, predictive bias, and external bias, specifically.
In addition, the text provides useful summaries of select IQ test bias studies (and their conclusions) that have been conducted since 1980. It is my belief that the timeless insights and practices gained from this volume will lead clinicians to a more accurate understanding of IQ test bias, how it is determined, and how test bias research can inspire confidence in modern individualized intelligence testing.
Acknowledgments
In a project of this size, there inevitably were times when my reach exceeded my grasp, and assistance with locating references, data collection, figure editing, or testing expertise became crucial. The following individuals (listed in alphabetical order) were indispensable to me in providing resources that improved the overall quality of this text significantly. I am deeply grateful for their willingness to help. Thank you!
Beth Allen
Rosie Arcelay
Bruce Bracken
Troy Courville
Katy Genseke
Kacey Gilbert
Janaki Gothandaraman
Jeff Harwell
Morgan Huenergarde
Emil Kirkegaard
Courtney Larsen
Steve McCallum
Ratna Nandakumar
Gale Roid
Susan Raiford
Cecil Reynolds
Bob Uttl
Russell Warne
OneINTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
During the writing of this text, the California State Department of Education (CDE) issued a memorandum, dated September 14, 2022, for all Special Education Local Plan Area Directors in the state (California Department of Education, 2022). The memorandum effectively reversed (in part) the prohibition against administering IQ tests to African–American students for any special education purpose in California schools. The memorandum was issued in response to an earlier 1986 CDE memorandum which expanded Judge Peckham’s original 1979 decision in the Larry P. v. Wilson Riles trial. Peckham’s decision prohibited the use of IQ tests for placing Black students in programs for (what was then called at the time) the Educable Mentally Retarded—on the grounds that (in his determination) IQ tests were culturally biased against African–American pupils. The CDE’s 1986 memorandum expanded Judge Peckham’s decision to prohibit the use of IQ tests for Black students in California for any special education purpose (including gifted identification; see California Association of School Psychologists, 1987; Frisby & Henry, 2015).
The prohibition had been in effect in California for over three decades, engendering much confusion and misinformation across school districts and among school psychologists as to what tests were or were not allowed to be used—as well as what procedures were needed to properly evaluate Black students for special education. Whatever procedures were used, there was uniform agreement that the quality of assessment services for Black pupils had taken a severe hit.
The most recent 2022 memorandum allows IQ tests to be used with Black students for any special education category except intellectual disabilities (IDs)—which essentially retained Judge Peckham’s original 1979 decision. Undoubtedly, this recent memorandum was greeted with a palpable sense of relief among most clinicians in the state; however, this did not address what was fundamentally problematic with California politics as it relates to the use of IQ tests (e.g., see Thomas, 2019). This fundamental problem relates to widespread confusion and the general lack of consensus among professionals as to what intelligence test bias is, how it is investigated in the science of psychometrics, and the extent to which it may (or may not) exist in commonly used intelligence tests.
The effects of the Larry P. trial on school psychology in California were witnessed up close by this author, as I was a school psychology graduate student attending a California university in the early 1980s. At that time, all school psychology students were required (as they are now) to take classes on administering and interpreting intelligence tests, and training programs were required to provide school districts with competent graduates in this regard. Unfortunately, instead of there being a widespread consensus about the relationship between intelligence testing and cultural bias in school psychology training, training programs instead resembled autonomous fiefdoms whose reactions to the Larry P. decision reflected each program’s idiosyncratic attitudes. Some California programs reacted to the Larry P. decision as one of the worst things that could have ever happened to school psychology in the state, while other programs celebrated the decision as a welcome advance for equity and social justice.
At about the same time, world‐class educational psychologist Arthur Jensen published Bias in Mental Testing (abbreviated hereafter as BIMT) in 1980. BIMT is a 780+ page text that, to this day close to half a century later, remains unmatched in its impact on the scientific understanding of bias in mental testing, generally, and intelligence testing, specifically. While test bias studies were being conducted pre‐1980, there was little effort to comprehensively and exhaustively consolidate, organize, summarize, and evaluate such studies under a coherent picture of what was being learned about mental test bias. No other text up until 1980 had made such a concerted effort to provide clear analyses as to popular misconceptions about test bias that were widespread among professional organizations, the general public, and the popular media (which unfortunately, persists up to the present day). No other text before 1980 had provided clear and precise scientific definitions for the many different forms of bias that could potentially affect mental tests. Studies of test bias after 1980 owe a huge debt to the concepts provided in BIMT. This explains why so many references to this important book appear in the present text.
Despite BIMT’s seismic impact on the world of psychometrics, its influence has barely registered on graduate students taking clinical training courses in intelligence testing. Such courses are under tremendous pressure to expose students to so much information in so little time. To illustrate, intelligence testing courses are required to teach students: (a) the history of intelligence testing; (b) how to use and score a wide variety of different intelligence tests; (c) the clinical skills necessary for administering, scoring, and interpreting tests with actual subjects; (d) how to write clinically useful reports that detail the results of testing; and (e) how to master the basic measurement concepts of reliability, validity, measures of central tendency, measures of variability, correlation, calculating standard scores, computing confidence intervals, interpreting information from the normal curve, and interpreting factor loading tables. With ongoing advances in computer technology, many students also must learn how to administer Q‐global assessments on laptop computers as well as how to interpret printouts generated from computer scoring programs. It comes as little surprise, then, that students in assessment courses have so little sustained exposure to concepts of test bias (which require familiarity with all of these other topics as pre‐requisite knowledge). For many training programs, didactic instruction on test bias is, at best, an afterthought.
Compounding this problem is the inevitable confusion that occurs when students experience virulent anti‐IQ test hostility from journal articles, newspaper stories, television news programs, or activist peers and/or professors, which they may encounter in their training programs or at professional conventions. They will no doubt hear endless accusations that “intelligence testing is culturally biased”—based on little more than a vague awareness of significant differences in mean intelligence test scores achieved by population subgroups. If students are not grounded in sustained instruction on the topic of test bias, then many may begin to wonder if they are “doing something wrong” by administering IQ tests as a basic requirement of their professional service in applied settings.
There are so many excellent and important books, book chapters, and journal articles that have been written on the topic of intelligence test bias since 1980 (many of which are cited in this text). Why, then, is another text on the topic needed? Many publications on test bias are written with measurement specialists, psychometricians, and researchers in mind. In contrast, this text was purposely designed to be most useful instead to applied clinicians who may not have the time, resources, or inclination to familiarize themselves with the massive literature on IQ test bias—much less conduct original research on the topic. The applied clinician is most likely to be more interested in how the use of IQ tests—from test selection to test scoring—may be impacted by test bias. As such, this book includes 10 chapters, the content of which is summarized below.
Chapter 2: Sources of Bias Claims in Intelligence Testing: A Brief Overview. Criticisms of IQ testing have been around as long as IQ testing has been around. In addition, accusations of cultural bias against IQ tests will exist as long as they are used in diverse societies. Some criticisms stem from a basic discomfort that many feel from the notion that a quantitative score can be derived from the evaluation of a trait that is viewed by many as intensely personal and unmeasurable. More frequently, critics align with deeply felt sociopolitical ideologies that often collide with the results of mental testing. This chapter provides readers with a sampling of what critics have said about IQ testing over seven decades. In addition, numerous sources of IQ test criticisms that originate from academia, organized advocacy groups, the courts, and the popular/print media are discussed. The chapter closes with a brief overview of counter‐narratives that have defended IQ testing.
Chapter 3: Bias and IQ Test Selection. This chapter begins with a basic discussion of why intelligence tests are needed in applied human services, and the criteria that enter into the selection of good IQ tests from the perspective of the applied clinician, the measurement specialist/psychometrician, and test publishing companies. This material includes an in‐depth discussion of the popular concept of “test fairness”—used by test companies to market their products. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of the specific assessment features and strengths of popular individually administered IQ test batteries currently available at the time of this writing.
Chapter 4: Bias and IQ Test Standardization. One of the earliest and most frequent criticisms of IQ tests are directed at the demographic makeup of tests’ standardization samples. Many critics attack IQ tests on this issue, without having the foggiest idea of the procedures that modern test companies routinely go through in order to standardize their tests with a view toward unbiased assessment. This chapter discusses these issues in detail, concluding with an in‐depth discussion of an excellent study that tested the hypothesis of standardization bias in a standardized academic achievement test.
Chapter 5: Bias and IQ Test Content. A popular tactic used by IQ test critics is to hold individual items found on intelligence tests up to public ridicule as hopelessly biased against one or more subpopulation groups. This is then used as leverage to attack the entire test as biased and therefore unacceptable for use with examinees from certain subpopulation groups. This was the strategy used by plaintiffs’ psychologists in the Larry P. court case, which ultimately was successful in convincing the judge to condemn IQ tests as culturally biased against Black children. Claims that IQ tests are biased in their content are discussed at length, and results from empirical methods used to evaluate claims of biased item content are reviewed and discussed.
Chapter 6: Bias and IQ Test Administration/Scoring. This chapter discusses at length the sustained attacks made on the manner in which “traditional” IQ tests are routinely administered and scored. Most of these criticisms come from researchers aligned with the “dynamic/learning potential/interactive assessment” movement. This movement has gained much traction over the years within many clinical and research circles as a necessary antidote to the presumed shortcomings of “traditional” IQ testing. The movement claims to be the only fair way to assess the intellectual capabilities of examinees who are socioeconomically deprived, “culturally disadvantaged,” or who have suffered from traumatic life disruptions in their backgrounds (e.g., war, natural disasters, and/or immigration). This chapter lays out the various assessment claims of this movement and compares each claim with corresponding rebuttals from the “traditional testing” camp.
Chapter 7: Bias and IQ Test Interpretation. IQ test critics claim that intelligence tests measure almost everything under the sun except thinking and reasoning skills. IQ tests are the target of criticisms that trivialize how content is determined; mischaracterize what test items are designed to measure; misrepresent the circumstances under which IQ scores can vary and create undue alarm as to the presumed negative societal consequences of IQ scores. The chapter goes into considerable detail reminding clinicians that IQ tests measure unobservable latent constructs that are deeper than the observable surface characteristics of test items (made possible through a basic understanding of factor analysis). Crucial in these discussions is for clinicians to understand the nature of g (general mental ability), and the types of items that are good measures of g. The chapter concludes with an extensive discussion of how individual differences in general mental ability (measured by good IQ tests) are highly correlated with school/classroom academic performance, preferences for college majors, and occupational/employment success in the world of work.
Chapter 8: IQ Test Bias: What It Is and What It Is Not. If readers do not have the time to read and digest the previous seven chapters, they can read Chapters 8 and 9 to obtain a broad, general overview of the main themes in the overall text. In Chapter 8, popular but inadequate arguments used by critics to accuse IQ tests of bias are summarized, followed by discussions of why these arguments are fallacious. This is followed by a brief discussion of the fundamental characteristics that distinguish between adequate versus inadequate conceptualizations of test bias—and the proper ways that bias has been studied in psychometric science. Test bias is subdivided into the categories of content, item, predictive, construct, and external sources of bias. No effort is made to comprehensively review all of the statistical methods that have been used to investigate test bias, as this would require several volumes. Instead, readers are introduced to the logic of simpler statistical procedures that are typically used to evaluate bias claims. The chapter concludes with direct quotes from respected scholars—across many decades—who document the lack of significant bias in commonly used IQ tests.
Chapter 9: Select IQ Test Bias Studies Since 1980. No text on IQ test bias would be complete without exposing readers to actual post‐1980 research studies that have investigated bias in the wide variety of instruments typically used in clinical work. By reviewing these studies, readers can appreciate the samples recruited for these studies, how researchers craft their research hypotheses, and the statistical procedures (discussed in this text) that have been applied to actual test data. The chapter closes with a discussion of five concluding thoughts that clinicians must keep in mind as they navigate professionally responsible and ethical IQ test usage within the context of inevitable accusations of test bias.
Chapter 10: Essential Terminology. This chapter provides readers with definitions (and in some cases, formulas) for the various specialized or technical terms used in this text, specifically, or in other similar texts, generally.
As one of many books in the Wiley “Essentials” series, the material in this text can apply to a variety of diverse IQ tests that regularly compete for market share. Many of the tests discussed in this text are in the process of being updated, and there will obviously come a time when all tests discussed here will be superseded by more updated revisions. Nevertheless, the principles discussed in this text are foundational and timeless, and will continue to be relevant to all intelligence tests regardless of their conceptual underpinnings or manifest content.
TwoSOURCES OF BIAS CLAIMS IN INTELLIGENCE TESTING: A BRIEF HISTORY
Criticisms of mental testing, particularly when individually administered IQ tests are involved, are as old as standardized testing itself (Chapman, 1988; Franklin, 2007; Gould, 1996). Many criticisms focus on disagreements related to the meaning of “intelligence,” and whether or not IQ tests are effective at measuring what they claim to measure (Hilliard, 1994, 1996; Sternberg et al., 1995). Other criticisms focus on the uses of mental test results, particularly within the context of public schooling, generally, and special education, particularly (Coard, 2021; Ford & Helms, 2012; Thomas, 2019).
The observation that different racial and ethnic subpopulation groups achieve different mean scores on IQ tests is also as old as standardized mental testing (Jensen, 1994, 1998; Lynn, 2015). In fact, articles published many decades before this writing will often assert that racial/ethnic group differences in IQ test scores are well established (Cartwright & Burtis, 1968; Jenkins, 1939a, 1939b; Klineberg & Darley, 1963; Shuey, 1966). Some critics do not have problems with what IQ tests measure, but instead argue that different social and environmental conditions to which population subgroups are exposed largely explain average lower performance of certain groups relative to others. Others base their critiques on what they perceive to be the faulty development, administration, and interpretation of IQ tests. They charge IQ tests with “cultural bias” – which essentially means that IQ tests presumably give an unfair advantage to higher‐scoring subpopulation groups who benefit from sustained exposure to cultural experiences that are different from (or nonexistent in) the socialization experiences of lower‐scoring subpopulation groups. Other critics see IQ testing as a small part of a larger conspiracy of societal racism, discrimination, and mean‐spirited efforts to block the advancement of lower‐scoring groups (Thomas, 2019; Williams, 1971; Williams et al., 1980).
America is home to a wide variety of different racial and ethnic groups. More often than not, however, most published criticisms tend to focus almost exclusively on IQ test score comparisons between American Black and White examinees. This puts IQ testing squarely in the crosshairs of ideologically driven criticisms that are shrill, inflammatory, and vicious in attempts to destroy IQ testing and those who support it. To such critics, IQ testing is not just wrong or misguided, but is downright evil.
When casual observers are told that “IQ tests are biased,” what is often heard instead is that “IQ tests are bad” in some way. Critics have little to no patience for taking the time to systematically investigate what specifically is meant by the word “bias,” what specific features of tests are problematic, or even whether or not such claims have been empirically investigated. In their view, IQ tests instead become an easy symbol for the oppression and mistreatment of certain groups for the benefit of other groups.
Hostility toward IQ testing is seemingly impervious to contrary evidence, improvements in test development and construction, or reasoned defenses of their usefulness in the clinical/educational settings in which they are employed. A brief sampling of the nature of published IQ test bias criticisms—spanning seven decades from the 1960s to the present day—is provided in Rapid Reference 2.1.
Rapid Reference 2.1
Seven Decades of Anti‐IQ Test Hostility and Criticisms
“In view of the close relationship between IQ scores and social class in [the] Big City, it seems that one very destructive function of the IQ score is that it serves as a kind of cement which fixes students into the social classes of their birth. IQ is the supreme and unchallengeable justification for the social system.” (Sexton,
1961
, p. 51)
“We must also recognize the limitations of present‐day intelligence tests. Largely developed and standardized on white middle‐class children, these tests tend to be biased against black children to an unknown degree. While IQ tests do predict school achievement, we cannot demonstrate that they are accurate as measures of innate endowment. Any generalizations about the ability of black or white children are very much limited by the nature of existing IQ tests.” (Council of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues,
1969
)
“[M]easured IQ in Black people is not an accurate measure of intelligence … measures of individual achievement and the conditions confronting the learner are different for Blacks and Whites.” (Williams,
1970a
, p. 19)
“ … [T]raditional ability tests do systematically and consistently lead to assigning of improper and false labels on Black children, and consequently to dehumanization and Black intellectual genocide.” (Williams,
1971
, p. 62)
“Traditional tests of intelligence are inappropriate for minority children, particularly children of non‐English speaking backgrounds … diverse groups … have all pointed to the failure of the test publishing industry to fully consider the cultural and linguistic differences of minority children.” (de Avila & Havassy,
1974
, p. 1)
“ … [S]ince its introduction to America, the IQ test has been used more or less consciously as an instrument of oppression against the underprivileged, the poor, the foreign born, and racial minorities.” (Kamin,
1974
, p. 12)
“These data point out an overwhelming sexual and racial imbalance in the item content of IQ tests … As the history of this country attests to the dominance of white males, IQ tests also reflect this cultural pattern … the indeterminable consequences of such bias on students who take a test could represent a serious breech of educational goals and legal mandates … Such subtle biases perpetuate offensive perceptions and have no place in intelligence testing. Since PL 94‐142 (Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) mandates that ‘Testing and evaluation materials … must be selected … so as not to be racially or culturally discriminatory,’ it is recommended that test items should be rewritten so as to correct this heretofore unaddressed bias.” (Zoref & Williams,
1980
, pp. 319, 321)
“In the United States, IQ tests are developed by and for Whites, the belated inclusion of minorities in norms tables notwithstanding. IQ tests and their derivates have been used on minorities not so much for prescriptive‐intervention purposes as for objective confirmation of suspiciously different behavior and for placement into special education and out of programs for the gifted, higher education, and advanced positions in the world of work. These applications are predictable enough in a society whose ethos is simultaneously normative and competitive and whose history belies a strong if sometimes unconscious racism.” (Bernal,
1981
, p. 3)
“ … [T]he problems with IQ testing are far more grave than cultural bias, and the injuries resulting from their use extend beyond Black children. The real [question] is whether IQ testing contributes anything of significant value to the instructional and/or learning processes, such that we are better off with them than without.” (Hilliard,
1983
, p. 11)
“[I]t is the mismatch between what children from different ethnic groups bring to the test situation and the demands and expectations of the standardized test setting which are the most significant contributors to ethnic group differences in IQ, not cognitive deficits … black children adopted by black families … and who had white or racially mixed friendship networks had a greater opportunity to be exposed to the white culture, which … appears to have the effect of increasing their IQ. These relationships do not suggest that these children are any ‘smarter’ than their peers reared in predominantly black neighborhoods, but rather they indicate the significance of knowledge of white cultural themes and artifacts for performance on the WISC.” (Moore,
1987
, pp. 45, 50–51)
“[Hereditarians] swear up and down (and I agree with them completely) that the [IQ] tests are not biased – in the statistician’s definition … But [the vernacular concept of bias], the source of public concern, embodies an entirely different issue that, unfortunately, uses the same word … The public wants to know whether … society treats blacks unfairly – that is, whether lower black [IQ test] scores record biases in this social sense … [The book ‘The Bell Curve’] is a manifesto of conservative ideology, and its sorry and biased treatment of data records the primary purpose – advocacy above all.” (Gould,
1995a
, pp. 9–10, 12)
“IQ testing is bad measurement … Many scientists who study human behavior challenge the very use of the word “measurement” when it is applied to IQ testing … The issue with IQ testing is whether monocultural material in a multicultural world can be used to construct measuring instruments … Specifically, in a multilingual world, can a single language be used to construct an IQ test? … It cannot be overemphasized that the challenge to the measurability of the unknown construct ‘intelligence’ is a challenge not merely based on the cultural diversity among ethnic groups, it is a more fundamental challenge to the validity of IQ tests as measuring devices for anyone.” (Hilliard,
1996
, pp. 10–11)
“[C]onservative white behaviorists like Herrnstein and Murray [authors of The Bell Curve] continue this historical distortion of African American cultural contributions in their study … Although The Bell Curve’s theme regarding African American mental deficiency depends on an analysis of IQ scores, in reality the book’s interpretive poser relies on the presumption that African Americans traditionally remain, on average, intellectually inferior to whites.” (Welch,
2002
, pp. 180–181)
“Could it not be biased to simply place a child or adult who has not been reared in the tradition of taking [IQ] tests in this position in the first place? Is it not biased to take two individuals with totally different educational experiences and gauge their intelligence by the other? Is it not biased to ask questions of a person that are totally irrelevant to them considering the life they have lived and their values and then compare them to a person who finds that knowledge relevant and valuable? Is it not biased to take one group’s standards of what is successful and apply it to everyone else in the world? Additionally, intelligence tests are biased for anyone that the standardization sample does not represent well. If one hundred Native Americans constitute 1% of a given population and a test is then standardized with 1% of the standardization sample being Native American, should we now assume that the instrument has been normed appropriately for all one hundred Native Americans? That seems absurd, just as it is absurd to assume that most nationally standardized instruments are appropriate for ethnic minorities.” (Coleman‐Carew,
2002
, p. 27)
“There is a difficulty in … measuring ‘intelligence’ … it seems obvious that to try to capture the many forms of socially expressed intelligent behavior in a single coefficient – and to rank an entire population in a linear mode, like soldiers on parade lined up by height – excludes most richly intelligent human activities … Group comparisons of IQ are even more problematic … It’s just ideology masquerading as science.” (Rose,
2009
, pp. 787–788)
“Like teachers, [school psychologists] suffer from inadequate training, cultural and class insensitivities … and prejudicial biases. School psychologists have been especially challenged with inadequate tools (tests and measures) to assess culturally diverse students for special education … IQ tests have been found wanting in their utility for special education placements.” (Codrington & Fairchild,
2012
, p. 11)
“ … [T]hese are eugenicists who created these [IQ] tests, not just to prove that Latinos and black people were inferior to white people, but also to prove that women were genetically intellectually inferior to men, that poor people were genetically intellectually inferior to wealthy people, … that non‐Anglo‐Saxons were intellectually inferior to Anglo‐Saxons. And so, [IQ tests] became the evidence that they had been looking for, really, for hundreds of years, to prove that people of color and poor people and women were intellectually inferior.” (Ibram X. Kendi, quoted from Goodman & Gonzalez,
2019
)
“Standardized tests have become the most effective racist weapon ever devised to objectively degrade Black and Brown minds and legally exclude their bodies from prestigious schools.” (Kendi,
2020
)
“Since their inception almost a century ago, [standardized high stakes tests] have been instruments of racism and a biased system. Decades of research demonstrate that Black, Latin(o/a/x), and Native students, as well as students from some Asian groups, experience bias from standardized tests administered from early childhood through college.” (Rosales & Walker,
2021
)
“IQ tests weren’t developed because intelligence was discovered one day but because eugenicists wanted to justify ethnic cleansing … What IQ tests actually measure, rather than innate intelligence, seems to be largely how motivated students are when taking the test … In the aggregate, IQ tests largely measure not intelligence but oppression. The results are then turned around to justify poverty [and] injustice … ” (Lee,
2021
)
“Despite efforts to improve the validity and reliability of IQ tests, research has shown that these tests are inherently biased towards certain groups of society. One major criticism of IQ testing is that it fails to account for the impact of cultural and environmental factors on cognitive development … Studies have also shown that IQ tests are biased against individuals from certain ethnic and racial groups, particularly those who have historically been marginalized or discriminated against … IQ tests may reflect not only cognitive ability but also social and cultural factors that contribute to the educational and economic opportunities available to different groups.” (Plumb Learning,
2023
)
Published critiques of IQ testing certainly did not begin in the 1960s—as published critiques can be traced as far back as the 1920s (see Bond, 1924a, 1924b; Lippmann, 1922). Although the quotes in Rapid Reference 2.1 were selected to illustrate test bias claims of some sort, hostility toward mental testing encompasses a wide variety of closely related objections. Gottfredson provides a useful template that systematically identifies how IQ test criticisms are situated within broader criticisms of the intelligence construct. These are shown in Rapid Reference 2.2.
Rapid Reference 2.2
Criticisms of “Intelligence,” Its Measurement, and Interpretation in the Social Sciences (Adapted from Gottfredson, 2005)
Intelligence is a politicized concept, and it does not really exist.
Even if intelligence does exist, it cannot be measured adequately.
Even if intelligence can be adequately measured, it cannot be measured fairly in certain population subgroups.
Even if intelligence can be measured fairly, it is not that important or consequential.
Even if intelligence is important, there exist “multiple intelligences” (e.g., social, kinesthetic, and musical) that are equally important.
Even if intelligence is singular and important, it is mostly the product of social privilege and one's environment, and is not substantially heritable.
Even if intelligence is substantially heritable, it is quite malleable (substantially modifiable through intervention).
Accusations of test bias can be direct, indirect, or both. Accusations of test bias that are direct simply limit their discussions to the various issues that are germane to point #3 in Rapid Reference 2.2. Accusations of test bias that are indirect focus on other points in Rapid Reference 2.2, and it is merely implied that IQ tests cannot measure intelligence fairly across different subpopulation groups. For example, if IQ tests are criticized for not measuring intelligence very well (i.e., point #2 in Rapid Reference 2.2), then it is implied that “it naturally follows” that IQ tests also cannot measure intelligence fairly across different subpopulation groups (see Hilliard, 1996; Siegel, 1995).
SOURCES OF IQ TEST BIAS CLAIMS
Academia
Academics are expected to publish regularly in areas that are relevant to their developed areas of expertise. Books that are critical of IQ testing are plentiful, as are books highly critical of standardized paper‐and‐pencil group testing for academic achievement in schools and college admissions (Nairn, 1980; Wolfer, 2017). Books designed to criticize IQ testing address one or more issues related to the validity of intelligence as a construct; the adequacy of its measurement through standardized testing; the heritability of IQ scores and the “nature/nurture” issue; the nature and causes of racial/ethnic/social class differences in mean intelligence test scores; presumed cultural bias in the content of test items; the use of standardized mental test scores in special/gifted education decision‐making, research, and employment selection; the question of whether alternative means of testing are more useful than intelligence tests; and the role of IQ in the stratification of subpopulation groups in society. At times, there is a flurry of new books published in reaction to a singular book that immediately captures the attention of the social sciences and the popular press (such as Herrnstein and Murray's The Bell Curve). Other books are considerably less well known, as they are read by a more narrow cross section of social science scholars. All share in common a singular devotion to warning readers of the dangers of standardized mental testing, generally, or individualized IQ testing, specifically. A select roster of anti‐IQ testing books is listed in Rapid Reference 2.3.
Rapid Reference 2.3
Books That Are Largely Critical of Key Issues Related to IQ Testing and Its Uses
Book
Author(s)/editor(s)
Date of publication
The Science and Politics of I.Q
.
Leon Kamin
1974
Psychological Testing of American Minorities: Issues and Consequences
Ronald J. Samuda
1975 (revised 1998)
Psychological Tests and Minorities
Robert L. Williams, Brenda Johnson Wright, Vivian R. Isenstein
1977
Pseudoscience and Mental Ability
Jeffrey M. Blum
1978
The Dynamic Assessment of Retarded Performers
Reuven Feuerstein
1979
The Mismeasure of Man
Steven Jay Gould
1981 (revised 1996)
The Bell Curve Debate
a
Russell Jacoby and Naomi Glauberman
1995
The Bell Curve Wars
a
Steven Fraser
1995
Inequality by Design
:
Cracking the Bell Curve Myth
Claude S. Fischer et al.
1996
Measured Lies: The Bell Curve Examined
Joe L. Kincheloe, Shirley R. Steinberg, Aaron D. Gresson
1997
Race and Intelligence: Separating Science from Myth
Jefferson M. Fish
2001
Dynamic Assessment of Young Children
David Tzuriel
2001
The Mismeasure of Minds: Debating Race and Intelligence Between Brown and The Bell Curve
Michael E. Staub
2018
Larry P. Revisited: IQ Testing of African Americans
(Second Ed.)
William A. Thomas
2019
a Contains a collection of commentaries with a variety of viewpoints, many of which are negative/hostile.
When considered together as a group, anti‐IQ testing books promote a formulaic narrative on the dangers of IQ testing. Although the tone of anti‐IQ testing publications can range from measured and thoughtful to unhinged and shrill, they all ultimately boil down to the following narrative structure:
“The origins of IQ test development and testing was born out of the racism and personal biases of early test developers and individual difference researchers. Such racism promotes a hierarchy of inferior to superior subpopulation groups. Hence IQ testing will forever be closely associated with eugenics advocacy and anti‐immigration sentiments, which were common in earlier times when widespread IQ testing flourished. Since IQ tests are inherently racially and socioeconomically discriminatory, then it comes as no surprise that widespread IQ testing yields stubborn subpopulation mean differences in test scores even up to the present day. Both individual and group differences in IQ scores can be fully explained by environmental factors. If genetic factors play a role at all, it is very small and overly exaggerated by those who are hostile to an egalitarian society. IQ testing fails to predict anything important, as revealed in personal stories of children who achieved low scores on IQ tests, but made remarkable intellectual achievements later in adult life. When used in schools, IQ testing unfairly relegates a disproportionate number of nonWhite children to ‘dead‐end’ special education classes. Given their discriminatory nature, alternative and fairer nondiscriminatory testing paradigms are needed for use in schools for helping academically vulnerable children.”
Anti‐test Advocacy Groups and Organizations
There is much opposition that comes from organized advocacy groups who actively resist IQ research, IQ researchers, and IQ testing. To these groups, persons and activities that are sympathetic to IQ testing are viewed as representing “racism” or unfairness to select subpopulation groups—hence academic reputations must be destroyed or IQ testing must be discontinued or abolished completely (Southern Poverty Law Center, n.d.; Thomas, 2019).
At a meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA) in San Francisco in 1968, the Association of Black Psychologists presented a document (entitled “A Petition of Concerns”) demanding, among other things, that a moratorium be declared concerning the administration of intelligence tests to Black children “until appropriate and culturally sensitive tests were developed” (Williams et al., 1980, p. 264). The fourth of seven points stated:
“That the American Psychological Association immediately establish a committee to study the misuse of standardized psychological instruments (which are used) to maintain and justify the practice of systematically denying economic opportunities to Black youth.” (p. 264)
In response to the call for a moratorium on testing Black children issued by the Association of Black Psychologists, the APA’s Board of Scientific Affairs appointed an ad hoc committee of leading experts in tests and testing practices in schools. The committee’s 27 page report to the APA essentially upheld the validity of testing and was published in January in the American Psychologist (Cleary et al., 1975).
In a subsequent article published in American Psychologist, the chair of the Association of Black Psychologists rejected the report of Cleary et al., and called for government intervention and strict legal sanctions prohibiting the use of IQ tests with Black students (Jackson, 1975).
In a 1998 event sponsored by the African American Studies department at the City College of San Francisco and the Bay Area Association of Black Psychologists—nearly 300 psychologists, psychiatrists, lawyers, students, mental health workers, and community activists convened at the City College for a symposium on the IQ testing of African Americans. In a published book that transcribed the invited addresses of all conference speakers (Thomas, 2019), the ultimate goal of the conference was articulated as follows:
“Until adequate measuring instruments can be devised for the contextual assessment of academic achievement which would take into consideration the uniqueness of all students, the further use of tests such as the IQ and SAT will do more to damage the psyches of these students than measure their present‐day capabilities or predict their future success.” (p. 11)
As discussed in many autobiographical writings and news stories throughout history, various race and/or Marxist‐inspired protest groups have actively vandalized personal or university properties, disrupted classes, disrupted speeches, disinvited featured speakers, and blocked funding for, or demanded the firing of, intelligence researchers—particularly over their writings on racial differences in IQ test scores (Arden, 2018; Eysenck, 1991; Jensen, 1972; Nary, 2018; Pearson, 1991).
The Courts
Disparate impact is the name given to a legal liability theory under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which holds that an employment practice or policy has a disproportionately adverse effect on members of a protected class (e.g., racial group membership) compared with nonmembers of the protected class. Adverse impact is one element of disparate impact theory, which is defined as a “substantially different rate of selection in hiring, promotion, or other employment decision which works to the disadvantage of members of a race, sex, or ethnic group” (Biddle Consulting Group, 2015). The results of widespread cognitive testing (of which IQ testing is an important part) have always displayed significant differences in the means of score distributions for subpopulation groups. As a result, cognitive testing is often situated within the crosshairs of legal challenges in court cases involving selection decisions in education, college admissions, and employment.
A thorough summary of all court cases that have as their central feature the use of cognitive testing in the last 75 years is well beyond the scope of this brief chapter. Only a select mention of a few of the more important court cases (which feature individual IQ testing) is summarized next.
HOBSON v. HANSEN (1967) was a federal court case filed by Julius W. Hobson, a parent of two school‐aged children, against Superintendent Carl F. Hansen and the District of Columbia's (DC) Board of Education. At the time, the DC public schools instituted a tracking (ability grouping) system, the entrance to which was based on results from both achievement and aptitude test scores (including IQ test scores). In this context, a disproportionately higher percentage of blacks populated the lower ability tracks, and the higher tracts tended to be populated by mostly whites. The plaintiffs argued that the tracking system was racially discriminatory, having the effect of depriving Black students of equal educational opportunities resulting in a lifelong economic disadvantage.
