Culture and test session behavior: Part II.

Abstract

This article is the second of a two-part series evaluating knowledge claims concerning the relationship between culture (circumscribed by race, ethnicity, country of origin, language, and/or social class) and test session behavior (TSB) on group and individual tests of intelligence and/or achievement. Part I (this issue) examined knowledge claims from two of four relevant categories in the literature: (1) speculative theories, and (2) studies of standardized measures of test session behavior. In Part II of the series, knowledge claims about the relationship between culture and TSB are discussed from the perspective of two additional categories: (3) TSB experimental research, and (4) research in cross-cultural test development. Insights from Parts I and II are then summarized and discussed.

Stereotype Threat, Inquiring About Test Takers' Ethnicity and Gender, and Standardized Test Performance1

“…This interest and importance is magnified for stereotype threat because of its pertinence to ethnic and gender differences in academic and test performance. Precisely for these reasons, research into the impact of stereotype threat on standardized tests in operational use is critical (Brown & Josephs, 1999;Frisby, 1999;Jensen, 1998;Ryan, 2001;Sackett et al, 2001;Steele, 1998;Whaley, 1998). Stereotype threat is clearly robust and potent in the laboratory, as amply documented by the research cited earlier.…”

The 2002 revision of the American Psychological Association's ethics code: Implications for school psychologists

“…There are no simple answers; however, there exists growing agreement in the literature that practitioners must seek knowledge about the pupil's cultural background, language proficiency, and degree of acculturation, and that this knowledge should inform test selection, examiner interaction style, assessment interpretation, and intervention planning. Furthermore, there is growing consensus that a service-delivery model emphasizing early (pre-referral) intervention may help safeguard ethnic, racial, and linguistic minority children from unnecessary testing and the risk of misdiagnosis or misclassification (see American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 1999;Dana, 2000;Frisby, 1999aFrisby, ,1999bJitendra & Rohena-Diaz, 1996;Lopez, 1997Lopez, , 2002Ortiz, 2002;Paredes Scribner, 2002;Reynolds, Lowe, & Saenz, 1999).…”

Assessing intelligence in a cultural context.

“…The relationship as such may be based more on specific characteristics of the examinee and the test. Frisby (1999) reported that examiner familiarity was most positive for African American participants from low-SES backgrounds in comparison with Whites, especially when the tests were difficult and the examiner had known the examinee for a substantial period of time.…”