Factorial Invariance of Woodcock-Johnson III Scores for African Americans and Caucasian Americans
Open accessAbstract
Bias in testing has been of interest to psychologists and other test users since the origin of testing. New or revised tests often are subject to analyses that help examine the degree of bias in reference to group membership based on gender, language use, and race/ethnicity. The pervasive use of intelligence test data when making critical and, at times, life-changing decisions warrants the need by test developers and test users to examine possible test bias on new and recently revised intelligence tests. This study investigates factorial invariance and criterion-related validity of the Woodcock-Johnson III for African American and Caucasian American students. Data from this study suggest that although their mean scores differ, Woodcock-Johnson III scores have comparable meaning for both groups.
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?
Prior studies that examined test bias across different population subgroups have generally found no gender or ethnic group bias.
“Despite much discussion and debate in the literature with regard to the fairness of test instruments, those studies that have looked at test bias across different population subgroups have generally found no gender or ethnic group bias (e.g., Edwards & Oakland, 2006;Keith 1999;Keith et al. 1999;Scheiber 2016a, b;Scheiber & Kaufman, 2015;Reynolds et al. 2015;Trundt 2013).”
From Is the Cattell–Horn–Carroll-based factor structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fifth Edition (WISC-V) construct invariant for a representative sample of African–American, Hispanic, and Caucasian male and female students ages 6 to 16 years? (2016) · cites this paper as Edwards & Oakland, 2006
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Scheiber, C. (2016) · Journal of Pediatric Neuropsychology · doi:10.1007/s40817-016-0019-7 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Dombrowski, S. C., Watkins, M. W., McGill, R. J., Canivez, G. L., Holingue, C., Pritchard, A. E., & Jacobson, L. A. (2021) · Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment · doi:10.1177/0734282920954583 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
- Authors
- Edwards, O. W., & Oakland, T. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Central Florida (US)
- University of Florida (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-12
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 358-366
- ISSN
- 0734-2829 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-5144
- OpenAlex
- W2031482933
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 1.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment (publishedVersion)
- Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Keywords
- Woodcock-Johnson III, measurement invariance, test bias, racial bias, African American students, criterion validity, intelligence testing
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
