Case for Non‐Biased Intelligence Testing Against Black Africans Has Not Been Made: A Comment on Rushton, Skuy, and Bons (2004)

This reply reviews the conceptual, methodological, and statistical foundations of Rushton, Skuy and Bons' article in this journal that compared Black Africans, Whites and East Indians on the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices, and concluded that the Raven's is an unbiased test. Thr...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of selection and assessment 2006-09, Vol.14 (3), p.278-287
Hauptverfasser: Cronshaw, Steven F., Hamilton, Leah K., Onyura, Betty R., Winston, Andrew S.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This reply reviews the conceptual, methodological, and statistical foundations of Rushton, Skuy and Bons' article in this journal that compared Black Africans, Whites and East Indians on the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices, and concluded that the Raven's is an unbiased test. Through a technical re‐analysis of both the internal and external validity criteria for test bias using data reported in the Rushton et al. paper, we demonstrate that the Raven's Matrices test is in fact biased against Black Africans. We take issue with several additional elements of Rushton et al.'s study, including the use of non‐equivalent groups in test samples. We briefly review Rushton's racial‐realist research agenda and show that the assumption of test bias is central to advancing that agenda. Industrial/organizational and occupational psychologists should critically analyze and re‐evaluate the science employed in Rushton's racial‐realist research and also should better understand the ethical and social implications of accepting his reports of research findings on test bias and White–Black IQ differences as established scientific facts.
ISSN:0965-075X
1468-2389
DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00346.x