Comparing the Performance of Native North Americans and Predominantly White Military Recruits on Verbal and Nonverbal Measures of Cognitive Ability
Abstract
This study compared the cognitive ability of adult Canadian First Nations (American Indian) aboriginals (N=101) living in remote areas to recruits (N=131) undergoing military training in the Canadian Forces. Comparisons involved both verbal and nonverbal measures: The Canadian Forces Aptitude Test (CFAT), Wonderlic Personnel Test, (WPT), Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) and Mill Hill Vocabulary (MHV) test. All measures were examined for differential test and item functioning; as well, the CFAT was analyzed for adverse impact. Confirming past research, First Nations (FNs) members scored, on average, 18 points lower in IQ estimates based on the WPT, a verbal measure of cognitive ability; however, the differences between the groups were less on the nonverbal tests: SPM (5 points lower) and the MHV (9 points lower). Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analysis detected a few items from the CFAT, SPM and MHV that displayed DIF, but none from the WPT. The SPM and WPT appear to be unbiased measures with respect to differential test functioning (DTF), once language and education are controlled. Making employment decisions solely on verbal cognitive ability test scores, however, is likely to produce adverse impact against members of FN, unless verbal ability is a bona fide occupational requirement for the positions under consideration. Both the verbal and nonverbal cognitive ability tests assessed the same latent structure suggesting that the nonverbal tests could be used i…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Generally, studies either did not identify biased items, or biased items only negligibly impacted overall test scores.
“Generally, studies either did not identify biased items, or biased items only negligibly impacted overall test scores (e.g., Abad et al., 2004;Jensen & McGurk, 1987;Vanderpool & Catano, 2008).”
From Factors Related to Mean Score Group Differences on Cognitive Ability Tests: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as Vanderpool & Catano, 2008
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Peng, P., Wang, T.-F., Wang, C.-C., & Lin, X. (2019) · Psychological bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000182 · Cited by 286 · see citing works
Spearman's hypothesis and Amerindians: A meta-analysis
Nijenhuis, J., van den Hoek, M., & Armstrong, E. L. (2015) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2015.02.006 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Johnston, P., & Catano, V. (2013) · International Journal of Aviation Psychology · doi:10.1080/10508414.2013.799352 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
“The CFAT correlates with both the Wonderlic Personnel Test (r = .76) and Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices (r = .68; Vanderpool & Catano, 2008).”
MethodSelf-citationMa, S., & Jia, N. (2024) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence12110116 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
“In military settings, the test is used to assess the capabilities of new recruits (Vanderpool and Catano 2008) and the neurocognitive traits of young enlistees (Theleritis et al. 2012).”
Liu, X., Shi, Y., Niu, B., Shi, Z., Li, J.-L., Ma, Z., Wang, J., Gong, P.-Y., Zheng, A., Zhang, F.-C., et al. (2016) · Neuroscience Letters · doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2016.02.002 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Employee Selection in Times of Change
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. (2010) · Wiley-Blackwell eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470661628.ch5 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Ma, Z., Niu, B., Shi, Z., Li, J.-L., Wang, J., Zhang, F.-C., Gao, X.-C., & Zhang, K.-J. (2016) · Cellular and molecular neurobiology · doi:10.1007/s10571-016-0347-2 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
“RSPM, as a reliable measurement of cognitive abilities, because of its independence of language and reading and writing skills, and its simplicity, was widely adopted in numerous research studies (Vanderpool and Catano 2008).”
BackgroundDetermining Predictor Weights in Military Selection: An Application of Dominance Analysis
Darr, W., & Catano, V. (2016) · Military Psychology · doi:10.1037/mil0000107 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“…measure of intelligence, and its strong convergence with predominant intelligence measures such as the Canadian Armed Forces cognitive ability measure, r .79 (Vanderpool & Catano, 2008) and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (Dodrill & Warner, 1988; Saltzman, Strauss, Hunter, & Spellacy, 1998).”
BackgroundSelf-citationAddressing gender discrimination in cognitive assessment using the English Comprehension Test
Arendse, D. (2021) · doi:10.4102/sajip.v47i0.1776 · Cited by 3
“These differences may also connect to Vygotsky’s emphasis on the influence of culture and language on cognitive development (Ormrod, 2008; Vygotsky, 1978) as the environment and learning opportunities can influence this (Van der Pool & Catano, 2008).”
BackgroundDifferential Item Functioning on Raven’s SPM+ Amongst Two Convenience Samples of Yakuts and Russians
Shibaev, V., Grigoriev, A., Valueva, E., & Karlin, A. (2020) · Psych · doi:10.3390/psych2010005 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“We also managed to find another pre-2010 study by Vanderpool and Catano (2008), which involved a DIF analysis of Raven’s Matrices (and other tests) using logistic regression [21].”
MethodMcMillan, S. K., Stevens, S., & Kelloway, E. (2009) · Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · doi:10.1037/a0015973 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Factors Related to Mean Score Group Differences on Cognitive Ability Tests: A Systematic Review
Cuppello, S., Zibarras, L. D., & Corr, P. J. (2025) · Trends in Psychology · doi:10.1007/s43076-025-00504-5
Cerbone, B., Hanson, K. D., Lomay, V. T., Wicklund, M., & Weidman, D. (2024) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1093/arclin/acae116
Lomay, V. T., & Prigatano, G. (2016) · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-18338-1_7
“Review of the literature reveals a paucity of studies regarding the neuropsychological examination of American Indians and Alaska Natives (King and Fletcher-Janzen 2000; Vanderpool and Catano 2008).”
Background
- Authors
- Vanderpool, M., & Catano, V. M.
- Affiliations
- Saint Mary's University (CA)
- Venue
- International Journal of Selection and Assessment
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-08-19
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 239-248
- ISSN
- 0965-075X (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2389
- OpenAlex
- W1983443878
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 0.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Selection and Assessment (publishedVersion)
- Saint Mary's University Institutional Repository (Saint Mary's University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Keywords
- First Nations, military recruits, cognitive ability, verbal ability, nonverbal ability, differential item functioning, differential test functioning, adverse impact, Wonderlic Personnel Test, Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices, remote communities, personnel selection, spatial ability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
