Premium
Case for Non‐Biased Intelligence Testing Against Black Africans Has Not Been Made: A Comment on Rushton, Skuy, and Bons (2004)
Author(s) -
Cronshaw Steven F.,
Hamilton Leah K.,
Onyura Betty R.,
Winston Andrew S.
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
international journal of selection and assessment
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.812
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1468-2389
pISSN - 0965-075X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00346.x
Subject(s) - raven's progressive matrices , psychology , test (biology) , social psychology , cognition , paleontology , neuroscience , biology
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.