PreprintCited by 3Cognitive Abilities and TestingPsychometric Methodologies and TestingSocial and Intergroup Psychology

Spearman's Hypothesis in the Vietnam Experience Study and National Longitudinal Survey of Youth '79

Lasker, Jordan, Nyborg, Helmuth, Kirkegaard, Emil O. W.·2021

Abstract

There are few empirically derived theories explaining group differences in cognitive ability. Spearman's hypothesis is one such theory which holds that group differences are a function of a given test's relationship to general intelligence, g. Research into this hypothesis has generally been limited to the application of a single method lacking sensitivity, specificity, and the ability to assess test bias: Jensen’s method of correlated vectors. In order to overcome the resulting empirical gap, we applied three different psychometrically sound methods to examine the hypothesis among American blacks and whites in the Vietnam Experience Study (VES) and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY ‘79). We first used multi-group confirmatory factor analysis to assess bias and evaluate the hypothesis directly; we found that strict factorial invariance was tenable in both samples and either the strong or the weak form of the hypothesis was supported, with 87 and 78% of the group differences attributable to g in the VES and NLSY ’79 respectively. Using item response theory metrics to avoid pass rate confounding, a strong relationship between g loadings and group differences (r = 0.80 and 0.79) was observed. Finally, assessing differential item functioning with item level data revealed that a handful of items functioned differently, but their removal did not affect gap sizes much beyond what would be expected from shortening tests, and assessing the effect this had on scores…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.31234/osf.io/m4yn9

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis has repeatedly found that both weak and strong forms of measurement invariance obtain in US W-B differences, with g accounting for between 51% and 100% of the variance in the group difference across studies.

    “Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) has however repeatedly found that both weak and strong forms of measurement invariance obtain in US W-B differences (with g accounting for between 51% and 100% of the variance in the group difference across studies; Lasker et al., 2021, Table 7, p. 24)”

    From A Meta-Analysis of Spearman’s Hypothesis in the United States (2026) · cites this paper as Lasker et al., 2021

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lasker, J., Nyborg, H., & Kirkegaard, E. O. W.
Published
2021-05-26
OpenAlex
W3164803162
Cited by
3
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (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 › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
Spearman's hypothesis, general intelligence, test bias, racial differences in intelligence, National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979, measurement invariance, differential item functioning, item response theory, anchoring

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