Bias in mental testing since Bias in Mental Testing.

Abstract

Racial/ethnic subgroup differences in average performance on standardized tests o f cogn i­ tive ability are well established (Gordon & Bhattacharya, “Race and and Jensen, “Race and IQ Scores,” in E ncyclopedia o f H um an Intelligence, 1994; H errnstein & M urray, The B ell Curve, 1994), but the reasons for these differences are an ongoing source o f controversy. One popular and longstanding claim is that mean differences are caused by “cultural bias” in the tests. Arthur Jensen exhaustively review ed the empirical literature on the issue o f test bias, which resulted in his seminal book, B ias in M en ta l Testing (BIM T), published in 1980. On the basis o f empirical criteria for evaluating test bias, Jensen con­ cluded that standardized aptitude/ability tests predict equally w ell for American-born, Eng­ lish-speaking majority and minority subgroups and measure similar constructs. This paper summarizes the major conclusions from BIM T and evaluates writing on test bias published since BIMT. W e conclude that empirical research to date consistently finds that standardized cognitive tests are not biased in terms o f predictive and construct validity. Furthermore, con­ tinued claim s o f test bias, which appear in academic journals, the popular media, and som e p sychology textbooks, are not empirically justified. T hese claim s o f bias should be met with skepticism and evaluated critically according to established scientific principles.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 84 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.