Advertisement

Interchange

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 1–16 | Cite as

Test “validity,” “bias,” and “fairness”: An analysis from the perspective of the sociology of knowledge

  • Jane R. Mercer
Article

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bernal, E. M., Jr. A response to “Educational uses of tests with disadvantaged subjects.”American Psychologist, January 1975, 93–95.Google Scholar
  2. Buros, O. I. (Ed.).The mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, N.J.: Gryphon Press, 1940, 1949, 1953, 1959, 1965, 1972.Google Scholar
  3. Buss, A. R. The emerging field of the sociology of psychological knowledge.American Psychologist, October 1975, 988–1002.Google Scholar
  4. Cleary, A., Humphreys, L. G., Kendrick, S. A., & Wesman, A. Educational uses of tests with disadvantaged students.American Psychologist, January 1975, 15–41.Google Scholar
  5. Cronbach, L. J. Five decades of public controversy over mental testing.American Psychologist, January 1975, 1–14.Google Scholar
  6. Eells, K., Davis, A., Havighurst, R., Herrick, V., & Tyler, R.Intelligence and cultural differences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951.Google Scholar
  7. Helmstadter, G. C.Principles of psychological measurement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1964.Google Scholar
  8. Humphreys, L. G. Addendum.American Psychologist, January 1975, 95–96.Google Scholar
  9. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. Critical analysis of the statistical and ethical implications of various definitions of test bias.Psychological Bulletin, 1976,83, 1053–1071.Google Scholar
  10. Jackson, G. D. On the report of the ad hoc committee on educational uses of tests with disadvantaged students: Another psychological view from the Association of Black Psychologists.American Psychologist, January 1975, 88–93.Google Scholar
  11. Jensen, A. How biased are culture-loaded tests?Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1974,90, 185–244.Google Scholar
  12. Jensen, A. Test bias and construct validity. Invited address presented at the 83rd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, September 1975.Google Scholar
  13. Kamin, L. J.The science and politics of IQ. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974.Google Scholar
  14. Katz, M.Class, bureaucracy, and schools. New York: Praeger, 1972.Google Scholar
  15. Mannheim, K.Ideology and utopia. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., 1936.Google Scholar
  16. Mercer, J. R.Labeling the mentally retarded. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  17. Mercer, J. R. Sociocultural factors in educational labeling. In Michael J. Begab & Stephen A. Richardson (Eds.),The mentally retarded and society: A social science perspective. Baltimore, Md.: University Park Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  18. Mercer, J. R., & Brown, W. C. Racial differences in IQ: Fact or artifact? In Carl Senna (Ed.),The fallacy of I.Q. New York: The Third Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  19. Ramírez, M., & Castañeda, A.Cultural democracy, bicognitive development, and education. New York: Academic Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  20. Samuda, R. From ethnocentrism to a multicultural perspective in educational testing.Journal of Afro-American Issues, 1975,3(1), 4–18.Google Scholar
  21. Williams, R. Scientific racism and IQ: The silent mugging of the black community.Psychology Today, May 1974, 32ff.Google Scholar
  22. Williams, R. Moderator variables as bias in testing black children.Journal of Afro-American Issues, 1975,3(1), 77–90. (a)Google Scholar
  23. Wiliams, R. The Bitch-100: a culture-specific test.Journal of Afro-American Issues, 1975,3(1), 103–116. (b)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jane R. Mercer
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaRiverside

Personalised recommendations