An Experimental Model of Bias in Mental Testing

  • Gordon M. Harrington
Part of the Perspectives on Individual Differences book series (PIDF)


The necessary condition for test bias in the psychometric sense is the existence of group membership by test-item statistical interactions. To my knowledge; there is no disagreement on this point and the rationale has been fully developed elsewhere (Jensen, 1980). Attention here is focused on such statistical interactions and on bias as defined in this specific psychometric context.


Predictive Validity Latent Trait Item Analysis Item Difficulty Item Selection 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Psychological Association. Standards for educational and psychological tests and manuals. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1966.Google Scholar
  2. Anastasi, A. Psychological testing (4th ed.). New York: Colber & Macmillan, 1976.Google Scholar
  3. Barbacki, S., & Fisher, R. A. A test of the supposed precision of systematic arrangements. Annals of Eugenics, 1936, 7, 189–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bassett, G. C. Habit formation in a strain of albino rats of less than normal brain weight. Behavior Monographs, 1914, 2(4).Google Scholar
  5. Birnbaum, A. Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee’s ability. In F. M. Lord & M. R. Novick, Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968.Google Scholar
  6. Box, J. F. R. A. Fisher: The life of a scientist. New York: Wiley, 1978.Google Scholar
  7. Cattell, J. M. Mental tests and measurements. Mind, 1890, 15, 373–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 1955, 52, 281–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davenport, J. W., Hagquist, W. W., & Rankin, G. R. The symmetrical maze: An automated closed-field test series for rats. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1970, 2, 112–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dewey, J. Logic, the theory of inquiry. New York: Holt, 1938.Google Scholar
  11. Douglass, F. M., IV, Khavari, K. A., & Farber, P. D. A comparison of classical and latent trait item analysis procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1979, 39, 337–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dove, A. Soul story. New York Times Magazine, December 8, 1968, pp. 82–96.Google Scholar
  13. Dunn, E. C. A short history of genetics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.Google Scholar
  14. Espinasse, P. G. The polygene concept. Nature, 1942, 149, 732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ezekiel, M., & Fox, K. A. Methods of correlation and regression analysis. New York: Wiley, 1959.Google Scholar
  16. Festing, M., & Staats, J. Standardized nomenclature for inbred strains of rats. 4th listing. Transplantation, 1973, 16, 221–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fisher, R. A. The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1918, 52, 399–433.Google Scholar
  18. Fisher, R. A. Applications of “Students” distribution. Metron, 1925, 5, 90–104.Google Scholar
  19. Fisher, R. A. The design of experiments. London: Oliver & Boyd, 1935.Google Scholar
  20. Fisher, R. A. Contributions to mathematical statistics. New York: Wiley, 1950.Google Scholar
  21. Fisher, R. A., & Mackenzie, W. A. Studies in crop variation: II. The manurial response of different potato varieties. Journal of Agricultural Science, 1923, 13, 311–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guilford, J. P. Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954.Google Scholar
  23. Gulliksen, H. Theory of mental tests. New York: Wiley, 1950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harrington, G. M. Genetic-environmental interaction in “Intelligence”: Biometric genetic analysis of maze performance of Rattus norvegicus. Developmental Psychobiology, 1968, 1, 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harrington, G. M. Intelligence tests may favour the majority groups in a population. Nature, 1975, 258, 708–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harrington, G. M. The Har strains of rats: Origins and characteristics. Behavior Genetics, 1981, 11, 445–468.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hays, W. L. Statistics for psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963.Google Scholar
  28. Hays, W. L. Statistics for the social sciences (nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973.Google Scholar
  29. Hebb, D. O., & Williams, K. A method of rating animal intelligence. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1946, 34, 59–65.Google Scholar
  30. Hirsch, J. Behavior-genetic, or “experimental” analysis: The challenge of science versus the lure of technology. American Psychologist, 1967, 22, 118–130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. James, W. Pragmatism, a new name for some old ways of thinking. New York: Longmans-Green, 1907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jensen, A. R. Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  33. Jones, H. E., Conrad, H. S., & Blanchard, M. B. Environmental handicap in mental test performance. University of California Publications in Psychology, 1932, 5(3), 63–99.Google Scholar
  34. Kant, I. Critique of pure reason. London: Macmillan, 1933. (Originally published, 1791.)Google Scholar
  35. Kerlinger, F. N., & Pedhazur, E. J. Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973.Google Scholar
  36. Kifner, J. The “Chitlin’ Test” for Negroes. Chicago’s American, July 3, 1968, p. 5.Google Scholar
  37. Livesey, P. M. The rat, rabbit, and cat in the Hebb-Williams closed field test of animal intelligence. Australian Journal of Psychology, 1966, 18, 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mather, K. The polygene concept. Nature, 1942, 149, 731–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mather, K. The progress and prospect of biometrical genetics. In L. C. Dunn (Ed.), Genetics in the 20th century. New York: Macmillan, 1951.Google Scholar
  40. McDougall, W. An experiment for the testing of the hypothesis of Lamarck. British Journal of Psychology, 1927, 17, 267–304.Google Scholar
  41. McDougall, W. Fourth report on a Lamarckian experiment. British Journal of Psychology, 1938. 28, 321–345, 365–395.Google Scholar
  42. McDougall, W. Second report on a Lamarckian experiment. British Journal of Psychology, 1930, 20, 201–318.Google Scholar
  43. McGuire, T. R., & Hirsch, J. General intelligence (g) and heritability (H 2, h 2). In I. C. Uzgiris & F. Weizmann (Eds.), The structuring of experience. New York: Plenum Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  44. McNemar, Q. The revision of the Stanford-Binet scale: An analysis of the standardization data. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1942.Google Scholar
  45. Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.Google Scholar
  46. Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.Google Scholar
  47. Page, E. B. Ordered hypotheses for multiple treatments: A significance test for linear ranks. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1963, 58, 216–230.Google Scholar
  48. Rabinovitch, H. S., & Rosvold, H. E. A closed-field intelligence test for rats. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1951, 5, 122–128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rasch, G. An item analysis which takes individual differences into account. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 1966, 19, 49–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reilley, R. R. A note on minority group test bias studies. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80, 130–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rhine, J. B., & McDougall, W. Third report on a Lamarckian experiment. British Journal of Psychology, 1933, 24, 213–235.Google Scholar
  52. Searle, L. V. The organization of hereditary maze-brightness and maze-dullness. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1949, 39, 279–325.Google Scholar
  53. Shimberg, M. E. An investigation into the validity of norms with special reference to urban and rural groups. Archives of Psychology, 1929, No. 104.Google Scholar
  54. Small, W. S. An experimental study of the mental processes of the rat. American Journal of Psychology, 1900, 11, 133–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Small, W. S. Experimental study of the mental processes of the rat: II. American Journal of Psychology, 1901, 12, 206–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. Statistical methods (th ed.). Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  57. Spearman, C. “General intelligence,” objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 1904, 15, 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Terman, L. M. The measurement of intelligence. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thorndike, E. L. Animal intelligence. Psychological Monographs, 1898, 2 (4, Whole No. 8). (Originally titled Psychological Review, Monograph Supplements.)Google Scholar
  60. Thorndike, E. L. An introduction to the theory of mental and social measurements. New York: Teachers College, 1904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tolman, E. C. Inheritance of maze learning ability in rats. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 1924, 4, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tryon, R. C. Genetic differences in maze-learning ability in rats. In 39th Yearbook of National Society for Study of Education (Vol. 1). Bloomington, Ill.: Public School Publishing Company, 1940.Google Scholar
  63. Tryon, R. C. Individual differences. In F. A. Moss (Ed.), Comparative psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1942.Google Scholar
  64. Williams, R. C. The BITCH test (Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity). St. Louis: Williams (Robert L.) & Associates, 1972.Google Scholar
  65. Windelband, W. A history of philosophy. New York: Harper, 1958. (Originally published, 1901.)Google Scholar
  66. Woodworm, R. S., & Schlosberg, H. Experimental psychology. New York: Holt, 1954.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gordon M. Harrington
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Northern IowaCedar FallsUSA

Personalised recommendations