Educability-and-Group-Differences-1973-by-Arthur-Robert-Jensen

Recommendations

Info

Motivational Factors 269 college students. This makes sense in terms of the effect Katz was trying to detect in his experiment. The aim was to use a test which was so easy that not intelligence but mainly a speed factor, highly sensitive to distraction, would be the greatest source of variance in the experiment. The experimental tasks that come closest to resembling anything found in standard intelligence tests are the digit-letter substitution and digit-symbol tests, which resemble the digit-symbol subtest of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale. But of the eleven subtests comprising the Wechsler, digit symbol has by far the lowest loading on g (correlated for attenuation) and the lowest correlation of any subtest with the total IQ. Thus the tests used by Katz could hardly have been a better selection if the aim was to reveal the effects of situational variables on performance. But they were not intelligence tests and the conditions of administration that produced lower scores were not typical of normal testing. Moreover, Katz used Negro college students, and since college students are selected mainly for intelligence, this would have the effect of narrowing the range of variance that intelligence might contribute to performance on the tests, permitting personality and emotional factors to contribute a relatively larger proportion of the variance. Then, too, it should be noted that the Katz experiments are not concerned with comparing Negro and white performance on tests but with showing variation in Negro performance under different testing conditions. So we do not know how much Negro-white difference on any test would be accounted for by the Katz hypotheses. The magnitude of the score decrements found by Katz, even under the most extremely unfavorable conditions, are small in relation to the standard deviation in the population and do not invariably show up in the predicted direction from one experiment to another. When results are in the opposite direction to the hypothesis, it seems not to cast doubt on the hypothesis but to give rise to ad hoc rationalizations, such as, ‘In the last study the results when the tester was Negro were in the opposite direction, regardless of the kind of feedback used. There may be a simple regional explanation for these contradictory findings, since the earlier experiment was done in Florida, and the latter one in Tennessee. Perhaps the Negro student in the Deep South is more fearful of competition with white peers than is the Negro student in the Upper South’ (Katz, 1968, p. 281).
270 Educability and Group Differences RACE OF EXAMINER Despite the many conjectures (see Sattler, 1970, pp. 143-4) that the race of the examiner affects Negro-white differences on actual intelligence tests, the evidence does not support this belief. The most adequate published study intended to examine the testee and tester racial interaction used three Negro and three white female testers giving the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test to Negro and white children enrolled in a Head Start program in Tennessee. Race of the examiners was found to have no significant effect on the test scores of either the Negro or the white children (Miller & Phillips, 1966). Shuey (1966) compared the nineteen studies of Negro IQ in elementary school children in the South where the testing was done by a Negro with the results obtained on all Southern Negro school children. Shuey concludes: The 2,360 elementary school children tested by Negroes earned a mean IQ of 80-9 as compared with a combined mean of 80-6 earned by more than 30,000 Southern Negro school children, an undetermined but probably a large number of whom were tested by white investigators. The present writer also calculated the combined mean IQ achieved by 1,796 Southern colored high school pupils who were tested by Negro adults. This was 82-9 as compared with a mean of 82*1 secured by nearly 9,000 Southern colored high school students, many of whom were examined by white researchers. From these comparisons it would seem that the intelligence score of a Negro school child or high school pupil has not been adversely affected by the presence of a white tester, (p. 507) The most recent and comprehensive review of this topic concludes: ‘The experimenters’ race affects subjects’ picture and doll preferences, but may not influence their scores on intelligence tests and personality measures’ (Sattler, 1970, p. 137). DIFFERENTIAL TEST PERFORMANCE If generalized attitudes that depress Negro but not white performance accounted for the Negro-white IQ difference, it would be hard to explain why some kinds of tests are so affected and not
Page 1 and 2:
Educability & Group Differences Art
Page 3 and 4:
THE AUTHOR Since 1957 Dr. Arthur R.
Page 5 and 6:
Ediicability and Group ^
Page 7 and 8:
To the memory of Sir Cyril Burt e d
Page 9 and 10:
List o f Tables 3.1 Correlations am
Page 11 and 12:
17.3 Theoretical regression lines b
Page 13 and 14:
2 Educability and Group Differences
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
10 Educability and Group Difference
Page 23 and 24:
1 4 16 24 16 ^ I 1 2 1 2 6 6 2 1610
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Subpopulation differences in educab
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
2 Current technical misconceptions
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
j Intelligence and educability Educ
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Table 3.1 Correlations (decimals om
Page 93 and 94:
Table 3.3 Correlations (decimals om
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
100 Educability and Group Differenc
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
7 Race differences in intelligence
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
8 Multiple and partial correlation
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230: 218 Educability and Group Differenc
Page 255 and 256: 244 Educabilty and Group Difference
Page 271 and 272: 14 Teacher expectancy Credence in t
Page 279: 268 Educability and Group Differenc
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
ig Physical environment and mental
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
20 Recapitulation The study of abil
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
Appendix on Heritability Heritabili
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
References a in s w o r t h , m . d
Page 389 and 390:
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405 and 406:
Page 407 and 408:
Page 409 and 410:
398 Author Index Davis, A., 300 Dea
Page 411 and 412:
400 Author Index Nichols, R. C., 10
Page 413 and 414:
Author Index 401 Warren, B. L., 120
Page 415 and 416:
cultural deprivation, 258 culture-b
Page 417 and 418:
Making Xs Test of speed and persist
Page 419 and 420:
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale,
show all

Educability-and-Group-Differences-1973-by-Arthur-Robert-Jensen

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?