RB-53-l3

[ B

AU
~ L
t L

1-1

SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE RELATING TO 1EE EFFECTS

OF CULTURAL BACKGROUND ON APrITUDE TEST SCORES

E
T
I

Charles M. Lucas

N
Prepared at the request of' the Research Committee
of the College Entrance Examination Board

cut L:"c

f~~_r!!"::-~.L' p~~~ l:':;:':'_~~f:'i l..-'

r~1~1~j~-r~]1;:. ~-:.t~~c:S.~dfTl v,'

p~Ui:J\~cd

in lL..

il~,-;

:-

tt

"."loll';
.

_------

Educational Testing Service

Princeton, New Jersey
June 30, 1953

Contents
Page
Introduction
Aptitude

..

(>

...

Cultural Influence
Cultural Indices

(l

...

0>

Test Scores and Cultural Influence

4
4

Two Points of View

S1JIDJDa,ry

6
6

Culturally Unbiased Tests

Research and Development

. ..

Culture-Free Tests

7
10

Summary

Previous Reviews of the Literature .

11

Some Methodological Shortcomings of Comparison Studies

12

Racial Comparisons . . . . .
Score Differences among Racial Groups

13
13

Negligible Soore Differences among Racial Groups

16

Factors Involved in Score Differences among Racial Groups"

18

The Effect of Bilingualism on Test Score

20

21

SUlIJDla,ry

Occupational Group Comparisons

Score Differences among Occupational Groups . .

23
23
23

Score Differences among Groups Classified According to

Income and Educational Levels .

25

Factors Involved in Score Differences among Ocoupational Groups

26

Summary .

27

Methods of Occupational Classification

(>

Rural-Urban ComParisons
. .
Score Differences between Rural and Urban Groups
Factors Involved in Score Differences between Rural
and Urban Groups
. .
Summary : . .

28
28
29
32

Contents
Page
School Comparisons .

l)

<)

Score Differences between Pupils Enrolled in Small

and Large Schools .

..

Socioeconomic Class Comparisons

.
Nature of Composite Social Status Indices

33
33

Score Differences between Pupils of Schools ~cated in

Socioeconomically Good and Poor Locales
Score Differences between Public and Private School
Students .

Summary

....

35
37
38
38

Score Differences among Socioeconomic Classes

Score Differences among Socioeconomic Groups as a Function
of Item Type

41

Sl1JIJJnflry

42

1.01."

Discussion
Bibliography

.....

39

43
45

SURVEY OF THE LITERA.TURE RE~TING TO THE EFFECTS

OF CULTURAL PACKGROUND ON APTITUDE TEST SCORES

Introduction
A large number of articles are ourrently appearing reporting results of researoh on the relationship between aptitude test scores and
certboih soc:1al and cultural factors. Research on "oulture free" and
"culture f~iXtI tests together with earlier reports of differenoes in
measured intellectual and scholastic aptitude among groups of differing
oultural baokground reflect conoern about the valid!ty of many of the
tests that have been aooepted for many years as standard yardstioks for
measurement, gUidanoe, and seleotion. There has also been,an ll.1oreasing
reluctanoe to attribute test soore differenoes to native endowment without taking into account the' leeXning and past experiences of the groups
studied.
Before undertaking a survey of relevant literature, it seems appropriate to define "aptitude ll and "oultl.U'Sl influenoe," and to summarize
.
briefly some of the criticisms of aptitude tests that have been offered.
~.

Aptitude
Warren's definition of aptitude, written almost two decades ago,
still remains qliite a90eptable. According to his Dictionary of Psy,Ch~lOQl it 1s "a oondition or set of characteristics regarded assymptomatic of an individual's ability to aoquire with training some (usually
specified) knowledge, skUl, or set of responses, such a.s the ability to
speak a language, to produce musio, etc.. " It is not specified whether
this "oondition" is a product of native endowment, maturation, or education.' Nor is it speoified whether the "ability to acquire" is innate or
learned. Aooording to this definition aptitudes are present character.;.
istic~ that, are symptome.tic of future potent~lities. It would fc)'llow
then that an aptitUde test measures the presence and level of develop-

'~owa:rd

C. Warren, Dictionary of Psychology..

Mifflin, 1934.

New York:

Houghton-

-2-

ment of certain present abilities and behaviors from which a person's

future possibilities of performance can be

inferred.'~Si.lch an

inference

is usually some kind of an estimate or prediction in terms of probabilities.

A good example would be any one of the commonly accepted scholas-

tic aptitude tests.

The now classic account of Binet I s development of an intelligence
scale

need not be repeated here to indicate the close connection (if not

identity) between educability and measured intelligence.

tests I?f intelligence and

aptitud~

Most existing

enable prediction of future status

from an appraisal of present conditions, especially the prediction of

ability to progress academically and to achieve an educational ievel
appr?priate for entrance to various occupations and professions.

Directly

relevant studies involving intelligence tests are therefore included in

the present survey, which is otherwise limited to aptitude tests of the
strictly scholastic type.

Excluded are aptitude tests for certain voca-

tional and other non-academic areas.

The survey is further restricted

to published American and British investigations cited in Volumes 1

through 25 of Psychological Abstracts.

Additional material was obtained

from bibliographies appended to some of the articles.

A majority of the

studies cited were available for careful reading and consequently they
are reported in greater detail than those for which only abstracts were
available.
Cultural Influence
Cultural influences are those effects on behavior that operate as a
result of present or past membership in, or association With, some social
group or subgroup.

The group or subgroup in question may either be easily

identifiable, as in historical and ethnic groups, or relatively more difficult to distinguish, as in

l~osely

knit groups of individuals with

common interests, occupation, goals, and the like.

Culturally influenced

behavior is rEii5a~d~d as coming about through learning which may be formal

and deliberate or incidental and subtle.

Behavioral effects which result

directly 'from ~dific~tion of bO~ilY ~tructure (disease~ lesions, nutritional peculiarities, and the like) are not considered in the present report to be due to cultural influence.

-3Cultural Indices
When a study 1s to be made of behavior that occurs within a cultural
group or when a comparison between groups :i.s to be made, it is necessary
to adopt some criterion of group

belong1~ss;

by which to identify the membership.

some yardstick 1s needed

Various. indices of group identifi-

cat10nhave been ment1oned:1n published studies in this area.

One of the

more obvious a.nd also one that has been employed most frequently is race.

Among others are

na.t~Dna.lity,

ocoupation, income, geographical location

of residence, type of community, type of school attended, educational

level of parents and language spoken in the home.
A glance at the ltterature shows that a great many investigations
of behavior within a oultural group, or in contrast to that of other
groups, have employed anyone of these indices; others have used two or
more of them in combination, thus achieving a kind of composite index.
In short, cultural group for the purpose of empirical investigation has
almost always been defined in terms of very concrete criteria.

-4Test Scores and Cultural Influence

Two Points of View
Stephenson (223) pointed out that much of the rationale ot: testing
has hinged on the null hypothesis that cultural differences have little
or no effect upon the important dimensions of behavior.

Yet there is an

increasing amount of evidence in the literature supporting the view that

cultural factors do affect intelligence and aptitude test scores, in
many instances to a significant extent.
Writers like Bigelow (24) and Davis (63, 64) take the position that
such differences ought not to appear in tests.

Bigelow takes issue with

findings that upper social classes are more intelligent and Davis has
written widely in the same vein.

Cattell (46) charges that popular in-

telligence tests fail to measure a general intelligence factor but measure, instead, a great deal of acquired knowledge, non-intellectual abilities, and scholastic attainment.

Haggard (106) states that to the ex-

tent that culture affects test scores, making sub-cultures not comparable,
these tests are invalid--unf'air to members of lower socio-economic
groups.

Havighurst (111) recently proposed that the culture bias of most

intelligence tests be compensated for by the addition of ten points to

the IQ's of children from underprivileged homes and 5

~ints

to the IQ's

of the children of stable native-American factory and: clerical workers.

Other psychologists take a quite different point of view.

Anastasi

(5) accepts the fact that cultural factors affect behavior and also that

cultural factors enter our tests.

She states that whether this is desir-

able or not depends on the correlation of the test s{}ores with the test
criterion.
test.

Controlled cultural factors do not necessarily invalidate a

Turnbull' a (237) position is much the same:

liOn

a predictive test

any score difference between groups whose backgrounds differ, should be

judged not good or bad, not right or wrong, but useful or not useful,
valid or invalid for the prediction of future behavior.

We must specify

the criterion we wish to predict, and then justify intergroup equality

or inequality of test scores on the basis of ita effect on prediction."

-5s UIIIII'lB.I'y

Many studies have reported mantal test score differences between

cultural groups,. One view of these differences is that they reflect a
defect in the tests themselvel3, and further, that these tests fail to
measure general intelligence but measure acquired knowledge instead.

second view is that controlled cultural faotors do not necessarily invalidate a test; intergroup differences in test scores must be evaluated
on the basis of their effect on the prediction of the criterion.

-6Culturally Unbiased Tests

Research and Development
Though largely verbal in content, the original 1905 Binet scale and
its many subsequent revisions also include non-verbal and performance
material.

After 1910 a variety of largely non-verbal performance tests

and scales, suitable for individual administration, were developed and

used rather widely (2, 3, 12, 44, 56, 78, 96, 115, '143, 182, 206, 221).
Measures of this type require examinees to respond to concrete objects
such as blocks, form-boards, pictures, geometric figures, mazes, and the
like.

They were, to some extent, originally intended to serve as sub-

stitutes for the more verbal measures of intelligence in cases where

sensory and language handicaps precluded the use of scales of the Binet
type.

More recently, however, especially in the clinical situation,

individual measures of the performance type have been regarded less as

substitutes and more as complementary to verbal measures of intelligence,
The development of a wide variety of non-verbal group scales of
mental ability paralleled that of the non-verbal individual scales, particularly subsequent to the appearance and wide application of the
original Army Beta examination (34, 47, 67, 71, l32~ 158, 169, 178, 180,
189, 193, 230).
The rationale for measuring mental ability by non-verbal instruments
might be considered to rest, in part, on same of the early factorial research published by Spearman's students and others (62, 145, 170, 222).
This body of research demonstrated that Spearman's K factor was also
present in tests of the non-verbal pictorial type.

The large-scale

factor analysis study by members of the University of Chicago Psychology

Department was reported in 1935 (190).

The Spearman Visual Perception

Test (218) was found to be highly saturated with g and free from any
group factor . By 1936 Penrose and Raven (170) reported research on
progressive matrices as a valid measure of general intelligence.
Validity studies that soon followed the development of both non.verbal and performance scales reveal statistically significant correlations with scales of the verbal type.

Correlations for children in the

-7earli'ergrades are, for the most ,part, in the .60's ~~ . 70's, but for
pupils in tpe later grades and for adults, the
.40's and .50's.

coeffici~nts

To this, extent, research supports

th~

fall in the

oontention that

the two types pf test more or les8 measure the same or. assoQiat,ed functions.
Non"'verbal and performance scales fall into two categories: , (1)
those that include materials, such as piotUree, drawings" and the like
which are largely indigenous to a given culture (e.g." American) and
seldom found outside it, and (2) those that include material postulated
to be univers,ally famil,1ar and applicable to all human
to
form
of response.
.. content and
.
..
s~bly

~a8ures

b~ings,

with respect

in the former category pre-

would be valid for administration to individuals whose cultural

lacks a,re prima.;rily in the area ()f ~~ge facility,a:nd/or formal

schooling,

wh~reas

measures1n the latter category would approach being

"culture-free" on an international basis.

Taken broadly, therefore, all tests of a performance or non-verbal
nature could,. in a sense, be rega.rded as less cultUrally biased than
verbal tests.
Culture-Free Tests
Ainong the few test originators who state that their teats are applicable across cultures or across nationa::l 'boundaries are Squires (221),
Dodd (7l), Lei\ter (1.44), and Cattell {46, 47).

Squires' scale ofindi-

vidUal performance tests (1926) w~sdes1gned to measure intelligence

ranging :from very low to superior.

The test material includes a four-

bariylophone, wooden cubes,. dot patterns, "universal"'pictUre ma.teria.l,

and

the like Which can be aa.m1nfstered With'

pantoml~e''di;ections. The

aU~hor sUggests that the scale be \~ed for 'interracial testing. WIlen
it wa~ tried out on 50 Princeton stUdents; a correlation of .33 was
found betweeil'total~~cale"8ucce8ses"Bcor~and college 'aptitude score.

The 'b6rtelationbetween

t'otal":sca1.e "SUCC~S8~s~'Bcore'and 'Binet mental

agewa'a'found to: be .37 when the' Bcale' was administered to 50 feebleminded males at'Vfneland.

-8Dodd's International Group Mental Tests (1926)conaiate of tasks

requiring picture arrangement in time sequence) selection of pictorial
relations by matching, threading mazes, and the like.
test-retest reliability of .78.

Dodd reported a

Correlations between scores on his

scale and Binet mental age-were reported to be .,0 for 61 12-year-olda,

.52 for 28, children in grades 2-6, and
feeble-minded adults.

.6,

for 100 '-institutionalized

When the scale was administered to 267 Hindu

children in grades 1 to 10) tt was found to correlate .59 with the

Punjabi translation of the Binet.
The mater~als in Leiter's (14,) Interna~ional Performance Scale
(1936) consist of wooden frames on which are printed the forms or pictures that are to be matched with blocks containing the complementary
pictures.

The tasks required are natching) logical sequence, analogies,

completion, opposites, and the like.

Leiter reported a oorrelation of

.79 between his scale and the Stanford-Binet.

'!'lie age range of the 76

cases upon which this coefficient is oasea was

no~ repor~ed.

Cattell's Culture Free Test (1940) consists entirely of visualperceptual tasks including some that are very similar to Raven's Progressive Matrioes (189).

Statistical evidence of a general factor was

found (46) and Cattell concluded that the test

ability.

i~

a measure of general

Scores on the test correlated in the .50's, however, with the

Modified Alpha

E~ination,

Form 9.

Cattell et ale (48) reported in a

later paper that the arithmetic section of the ACE is most susceptible
to training and the Arthur Performance Scale least susceptible, the Culture Free Test and the Binet falling between these two extremes.

Sus-

ceptibility to train,ins in this study was considered by the authora to

be a kind of index of cultural susceptibility.
bility was more broadly defined

in

When cultural suscepti-

a companion study) Le., in terms of

test-retest comparisons of immigrant groups, the Arthur and Ferguson

performance measures were found to be most free from cultural influence.
Next :i.n order of freedom from cultural influence came the Culture Free
Test, the Binet, and the ACE.

Pierce-Jones and Tyler (174) reported

that the Cattell test did not reflect academic interest and'background

-9as much as the ACE.

They found that the ACE differentiated between an

arts-crafts group and a university group whereas the Culture Free Test
showed no such differentiation.
Among more recent research in the area of testing mental ability
with a minimum of oultural bias is that of Davis and Hess (66).

Davis

and Hess and Davis and Havighurst (65) proposed a culturally fair test
base4 on an item analysis of several commonly acoepted verbal tests of
intelligence. Th.e,ap;proach is to eliminate or reword those items that
have been found to discriminate against children of lower sooioeconomtc

".',"

status. The prima.~y concern of Davis and Hess is not so muoh an intellIgence test that oan be used within a wide ra.nge of cultural groups but
"

"

one that can be used from one socioeconomio subgroup of the broader Amerioan culture to another with a minimum of influence Qli thesoore of social
and cultural baokgrotmd.

Thus, it was reasoned," oultural experience

would be less Xikely to be oonfused with intelligence when judgments and

prediotions of mental ability are to be I1Rde.

The researoh of Eells et al.

(75) demcnstrated that present verbal tests of intelligenoe not only

discriminate between high and low social-status sc~ool oAildren in terms
of IQ, but that ma~ of the items, when analyzed by themselves, aiso
discriminate between the two groups to a statisti6ally signifioant extent.
The most recent development (1950) in the area of non-verbal inatru~nts for asse8si~ ability is Rulon's Semantio Test of J:ntelligepce(193) ~

The test is described" as reqUiring examinees to interpret symbols (human

and animal figures

in various aotivity and postural

states).

The prooess

of interPretation requires operations s1niilar to thoaerequired forreading except" that rio verbal lang~ge is written or spoken. The subject 1s
required to learn what to do "~dtIi the test mater'ia.ls by watohing the
examiner perform the operations.

For a group of institutionalized feeble-

minded ohildren, theoorrelation between eoores on the "Semantic Test of

Intelligence and 1916 Stanford-Binet mental age (tmoorrected) was found
to be ".174. Co:r.relat"ions with" school subject grad~s were "repot-ted as
"

:folloW's:

"

reading .250, geography .278, langUage .279.

The correlation

with the Binet appears to be oonsidera.blylower thap those reported between other non-verbal and performanoe measures and the Binet.

Rulon

-10-

points out that the test is only in a prel:lminary stage of development

and that further revision is needed followed by administration to a
variety of non-literates about to enter special Army training units.
Summary
Considerable research has been conducted in the area of the measurement of general intelligence by non-verbal and performance methods,
Measurement uncircumscribed by the demands of language facility ia an
approach to the goal of freedQm from cultural influence.
verbal teata

~onsisting

Several non-

of material chosen to be applicable to all

human beings have been developed.

On the whole, while performance teats

and purportedly culturally unbiased tests correlate significantly with

scales of the verbal type, the coefficients are not high enough to
warrant regarding the two types as measuring the same thing to the same
extent.

-11Previous Reviews of the Literature

The literature contains scores of studieaconcern1ng the effect on
test scores of cultural background, and many complete and. adequate

sum~

maries of work done in this general area ~ls6 appear in the literatUre.
Among others are books by AI1a.stasiand Foley (6), Bird (25), and Murphy,
Murphy and Newcomb (161), as well as the twenty~seventh and thirty-ninth
yearbooks of the National. Society for the Study of Education (163,164),
all of which contain good reviews of studies concerned with various
aspects of the influence of culture and environment'on test scores.
Burks (39) has prepared a good summary of the literature on the determiners of the intelligence quotient.

Included is an annotated bibliog-

raphy of studies of intelligence in relation to social environment and

raoe.

.Burks f work

con~ins

a number of studies not oited in the present

survey.
Reviews by Pintner (177), Tireman (236), and Witty and LehInan (248)
deal with investigations of the tested intelligence of national and raoial
groups.

Brill (33) summarized all the 'Brit:tsh and American studies of

Jewish versus non-~ewish intelligence up to'1930.

Kli1?-eberg (-137) and

Sheldon (20'r) have prepared summary:',lists of the

intelligencesoor~B of

racial groups as found by.a number of earlier investigators.

Reviews and summaries specific,to socioeconomic background and intelligence ha.va been published
by.Herrick (117), Jone s, (129), Loevinger
(149),
,
,
Lorimer and Osborn (150), Neff (-165), Schwesinger (201),' Sorokin, Zimmerman and Galpin'( 217), Stoddard and Wellman (224), and Wellman (244) ..

-12Some

Methodologic~l

Shortcomings of Comparison Studies

Before reviewing studies 'of the influence of cultural background on

ability'test scores, it should be noted that not a few of these studies
have certain methodological flaws that render the results somewhat open
to question.

Among the more common shortcoinings noted, especially in the

area of interracial comparisons, is the lack of control of variables such

as language handicap, reading disability and socioeconomic status.

In

many-studies, groups used as standards for comparison are not always completely described as to social characteristics and homogeneity.

An occa-

sional study included problem children in one or more of the groups

studied.

Experimental designs are sometimes wanting in precision because

of insufficient cases, the use of broad chronological age distributions,

and matching according to variables which seem closely related to the experimental variable.

And finally, analyses of group differenoes have

not always been oarried out according to what is currently regarded as

,best statistical usage.
In studies conducted prior to the 1920's,

~ests

of the statistioal

significance of the difference between means have not, as a rule, been

applied although probability expressed as a function of the deviation
had already been known to Quetelet, Galton, and others many years before.
Walker (240)

6tat~s

that by 1923 Kelly publi.shed a paper dealing with

the determination of significance of differences in test scores, and in

1924 McGaughy a~plied the ,term "critical
ratio" to the value p.e.
_x_ = 3,
,
where x represents a difference. It is reasonable to expect, therefore,
that many of the studies carried out before and shortly after the 1920's
would not liave applied such techniques in evaluating and interpreting
data.

Instead, . differences between central tendencie.s of score arrays

have usually been interpreted either in terms of absolute difference or

in terms of the per cent of scores in one distribution which were ob-

served to fall above or below a given point in a second score distribution.

As a result, the findings of many of the earlier studies of the

effect of background factors on test scores are rather difficult to

evaluate.

-13Racial Comparisons
Sc~re Differences among Racial Groups

An immediately obvious method for differentiating

one cultural group
,
'

from others is to classifY individuals according to race or national

origin., Many studies, which

beg~n

to appet;tr around the time of the First

World War, were based on comparisons among score distributions and measures of central tendency fo: various, racial ,and national groups (22, 31,

36, 77, 121, 133, 148, 176, 241, 249). Findings were generally published
,in the form of rankings by race or tables of score distributions.

In 1914, Phillips (173) reported results of testing 86 Negro and 166

white children between the ages of 6 and 15 years.

On the basis of Binet

scores, 54.6% of the Negro children, as compared to 24% of the white

children, were retarded one year or more.

Derrick (69) administered the

55 Negro college students.He reported (1920) average IQ's of 112 for the whites and 103 for
the NegroeBo The IQ range for the whites was 90 to 128 and for the Negroes.
76 to 125. Whereas 83.6~ of the Negroes tested below the average for the
Stanford revision of the Binet Scale to 75 white and

Whites, only 9.~ of the whites tested below the average for the Negroes.
In the same year, Murdock (1:60) reported results of testing 489 JeWish,

499 Italian, 485 Negro and 229 American children enrolled in New York City
public schools. Of the subjects enrolled in grades l~, 12, and 13, 15i
of the Italians, 3CJfo of the Negroes, and 5~ of the Americans equalled or
exceeded the median score of the Jewish subjects.
on the Pressey Group Intelligence Test.

Comparisons were based

Terman et al. (232) in the study

of a thoUBand gifted children, published in 1925, noted that their sample

contained an excess of individuals of JewiSh and American parentage and
a deficiency, of latin and Negro ancestry.

In 1929, Peterson and

~nier

(172) compared white and Negro adults on the basis of scores on the Otis
Test, Meyer's Test, Dodd's International Group Mental Scale, and Atkinson's Tests.

Sc'ores were in favor of the whites and ratios of the differ-

ence to the probable error of the difference were as follows for each
of the tests respectively: '19.48, 7.56, 6.03, 16.11.

They also reported

-14results of administering the Binet, Dodd' e t'est, and Meyer I s Tests to

white and Negro 12-year-olds.

As in the case of the adult sample, white

children tended to score higher than Negro children.

Critical ratios

for each of the tests, when administered to a Nashville sample, were

16.0"

5.74, and 1,.60 respectively.

When the Meyer's Tests were admin-

istered to white and Negro samples (12-yea:t-olds) in New York City, the
critical ratio was only .65 as compared to 13.60 for the Nashville
groups.

In the same year, Young. (253) reported results of testing 282

white children and 277 Negro children ranging in age from 9 to 10 years.
Scores for the white group ranged from 8 to 164 with a mean of 72; scores
for the Negro group ranged from 0 to 124 with a mean of 40.

He reported

that 18% of the white group scored above 100 and 20% below 50, whereas
only

2% of the Negro group scored above 100 and 60% scored below 50.
In 1926, Koch and Simmons (1,9) published the results of an exten-

sive stUdy of the intelligence of American, Negro and Mexican children,

~s

reflected by scores on the National Intelligence Test or the Detroit

Intelligence Tests.

Individuals examined ranged in age from 8 to 15

years and included 294 Whites, 270 Mexicans, and 246 Negroes, all residing in large Texas cities.

Results of this aspect of their stUdy indi-

cate white children to be superior to Negro and Mexican children, with

little or no difference between the Negro and Mexican groups.

A summary

table of the findings appears below.

Range of Difference
between Means for
each Age Level

Comparison
White and Mexican
White and Negro
Mexican and Negro

Range of
Critical Ratios

4., -

20 - 40
14 -

4.9 - 14.2

2 - 8

.8 - 2.9

,7

15.1

Papers by both Graham (104) and Seagoe and Koldin (202) reported
JeWish children to be superior to Italian children in terms of average
intelligence score.

Seagoe and Koldin (1925) reported 8.,3 as the ratio

of the difference between mean scores and the probable error of the difference for samples of 250 Jewish children and 14, Italian children en-

..15rolled in the sixth grade.' Graham (1927) who tested 47 Jewish children
(mean CA= 69 months) and 60 Italian children (mean CA == 76 months) found
a difference in average IQ of 6 points.

Mead (159) compared 276 Italian

and 176 American children enrolled in grades 6 to 10.

On the basis of

the Otis Group Intelligence Teet, the American children were found "to be
superior to the Italian ohildren to the extent that only

&to

of the Italian

children exoeeded the mean index of brightness of the Amerioan children..

Mead further noted tha:t the mean score of the Italian group steadily increased both with an increasing amount of English spoken in the home and
with increasing grade placement.

Increased grade placement, however, did

not effect an increased mean score for the American group ..

In 1936 Byrns .(40) reported one of the outcomes of a large statewide testing program extending over several years.

His findings 'are base9.

on Bcores of 78,560 Wisconsin high school seniors who had taken either
one of the follOWing:

the Ohio State Psychological Examination, the ACE,

or t:q.e Henmon-Nelson Test of Mental Ability.

had

All pupils in the sample

reported both parents of the 'same

. nationality.

standings for the 18 national groups,

ranged from 30.3 to 60.4.

r~preBented

The median percentile

.
in this stUdent sample,

When national groups W'ere ranked according to

median'score, differences between adjaoent groups were slight but differ-

enees between groups at the extreme ends of the range were quite large.
Ratios of the difference between group medUms and the probable error of
the differenoe ranged from .1 to 26.8,.
Marked differences in mental test scores have been reported in
several studies that compared various North American Indian tribes with
native whitea.

One of the earlier studies of this type was pUblished

by Rowe (192) in 1914.

He tested

547

white and 268 Indian children with

th,e. Goddard revision of the B1D.et-Simon testa.and reported that only 5.~
of the Indians, as oompared to 7~ of. the White group, soored at or
-;..

above chronological age.

.

Hunter and Sommermier (122) compared 715 Indian

.

children,enrolled at the Haskell Institute, W'ith 1336 white ChiJ"dren.

The median Otis Intelligence Test Bcorei'or' the Indian groups was found
to be 82 .64, with a standard de'ltiation oi' 36.7, whereas the me.dian. seore

-16for the white group was 122.58, with a standard deviation of 30.9.' In
1925, Garth, Serafini, and Dutton (88) reported that 1.&{o of 1050
\:.

children in the United States I Indian.sch<501s

of Oklahoma and New Mexico

equall,edcGrexceeded tlie median IQ of White children.

'l'heIndian median

IQ', on the basis of the National Intelligence 'Test, was 68.6.

Fitz-

gerald and Ludeman (79), however, found eo smaller discrepanoy between

the median .IQ's of Indian and white children. ' In 1926, they reported
an IQ ,range of 73 to III for the ir Indian sample,, .the Indian median IQ
,,

falling 12.5 points below the white median.

They noted that 4<J1, of the

IndianIQ's were a.bove the average for native white children.

Their

findings , however, were based ona sample of only 83 Indian chi,ldren.

Haught (108) studied the mental growth of a large sample of Southwestern
Indian children and published his findings in 1934.

The Pintner-Cunning-

ham Test was admi~istered to ~he very yo~ children, the National Inteiiigence Test to the intermediate age group, e.nd the Termc;l.n Group Test
. of Mental Ability to individuals in the upper age range.

In general,

the Indian children tended to score below the norms for white children
at all age levels.

Haught reported that the mental growth of Indian

children,ranging in age from 6 to 9 years, p~ralleled chronological age

but showed fl., retardation of one year.

For, the 9- to 16-year age range,

there was ,a uniform. increase in retardation.

Average retardations of

2.3 and 4.7 years were found for the 12- and l6-year~01ds respeotively.
"Haught further noted the.t IQ range was f01mdtobe 71 to 87, highest
IQ' s appear+~ at age 9 and lowest -at age 16.

He concluded that his

findingsreflect,: an inherent lack of ability in the I~dians' studied.

He supported this view

~ynotlng

thrit

incre~sed

school attelldance was

assooiated with decrease :in IQ and that the mental growth curves of the
....

'.,

Indi~n8

studied

10ok'~ike

those of feeble-minded children.

Neglisible Scor.e:Dl:ff'eI"(Ui"es among Ra.cial GrouPs

Amongstudi~S of

raciai
groups th,at
reve:l"-little
or no
"
. '
.
"

in mental test scores are those of Murdock

(16o),

differe~ces

Pintner and Keller

(181), Ye~g (?51), Goodenough (97), Klineberg (135)., and Brown (35)
Murdock, cited earlier, reported in 1920 that 53~ of the native American

-17children in her sample equalled or exceeded the

telligence Test score of the Jewish children.

medi~n

Pressey Group In-

In 1921, Plntner and Keller

reported results of testing 79 Jewish ~nd 367 American children enrolled

in kindergarten and grades 1 and. 2.

No differences

betwee~

the two groups

were'found on the basis of score's obtained on their own forms of the Binet
tests.

Yeung, also in 1921, reported results of testing 109 Chinese

children between the ages of 5 and 14 years.

The median IQ for this group

was found to be 97, as compared to the median IQ of 99 which Terman reported for 905 U!lBelected school children.

In 1926, Goodenough, using

the Draw-a-Man Test, reported a mean IQ of 106 for Jewish childre~ as compared to a mean IQ of 105 for Scandinavians.
bility for the Scandinavian children.

She found greater varia-

Kli~eberg,

in his study of the

differences between racia.l and national groups in Europe, reported small

, and unreliable differences among the Nordio, Alpine, and Mediterranean
aJ.lt~opological

types, as found in Germany, France, an.d I,taly.

scores were 188.5, 187.5, and 185.2 respeotively.

Mean

The basis for com-

parison was six tests of thePintner-Paterson _ Performanoe aeries, which

were administered to 1000 European boys between the ages of 10 and. 12
years.

Statistically significant differences, on the other hand, were

fqundb~tweep.

different samples of the same "race. tI

nations,yielded inc0tlclusive results.

Comparisons among

In 1944, Brown reported his study

of',second generation Jewish (N = 324) and Scandinavian (N = 323) kindergarten children.

Whe~,age)

Th.e 1916 Stanf'ord-Binet was administered to both groups.

sex, and socioeoonomic status were controlled, no differences

ingenera.l menta.l level were found.

Jewish.ohildren surpassed Scandi-

navians in counting pennies, distinguishing left from right, comprehension, naming coins, giving the date, and repeating four digits backwards,
but Scandinavian ohildren surpassed Jews in drawing a

sq~Te,

oopying a

diamond,. 'solving a test of patience, and on the ball and field test . '

~~Vighurst

and Hilkevitoh (113) ooncluded that Indian children do as well

as white children on a short form of the Arthur

perfo~noe

were a total of 670'individtials aged 6 to 15 years.

scale.

Tested

They were members

of S'U sou~hwestern Indian tribes and were distributed am.o~ 11 communities it The Hopi were above the norm for white children and the remaining

-18groups were approximately at the white liorItl' except" for, one Navaho and one
'Papago group.
Factors Involved in Score Differences among Racial GrotWs
A review of ,the two previous sections

a~geats,the

hypothesis that

empirical differences in mental test score between racial groups are more
likely to be found when verbal tests are adm1nist,ered and less likely to
be found when non-verbal or performance

mea~ures,

are administered., This

by'~ n~ber

hypothesis is'supported, to some extent,

of studies which

made compar:f,sone by meaIts of both verbal and non-verbal measures.

Among

(60), Jamieson and Sandiford

(124), Garth and Smith ('89), and Arthur (13).

studies of this type are those of Darsie

Darsie IS

'1926 study was based on the administration' of both the

570

Stanford-Binet and the Army Beta to

between the ages of

Japanese and

476

American children

10 and 15 years. The mean Binet score for the Amer-

icatl. group was found to be nine points higher than that of the Japanese
group'but mean Beta scores were found to be I1practically identical."
Darsie noted greater variability of scores among the Japanese children.
He attributed the differing results between the two measures to language differences.

A study published in

1928 by Jamieson and Sandiford reported

results of testing Indian children Tl1'ith several verbal and non-verbal

tests.

The results, summarized in tabular form, are as follows:'

Test

National Intelligence
Pintner Non-Language
Pintner-Paterson Performance

MedianIQ

Standard
Deviation

289
295
114

80.0
96.9
925

150
17.6
152

They noted that est.1mates of, Indian IQ' s were

gr~ter

when non,-language

measures had
been employed and further that the social-status of the
.'
'

In9-ian sUbj~cts was. generally lower tMn that of the white stan~dization population.

Schoo,l. attendance wa.s.also more irregula.;r and retard-

o/'tion grea.ter.When ~rth and Smith

Indians, between the ages of 8 and

(1937) compa.red the scores of 808

21 years, on both the Otis Classifi-

oation Test and the Pintner Non-Language Mental Test, scores were more

-19nearly equal to white soores on ~he non-language te.st 'than on the verbal

te~t.' N~~-la.~ge teat IQ' s: were

.

'0"

test IQ' a.

.......

fro~

14'

10 to

Artiiur, in 1941, tested four small samples of' Indian children

-.

','

':

.~-:.'I

various schools and encampments."

.-. I

" .

~,'

'

5 to 13 years and all were gIven

formarlCe seale.

:.

~-.

both
'.

:'::

Th~

l '.

IQ' 's:W8.a

'

~.

: .

.\

.' .

:"

Number of individuals in eaoh sample Varied between 12

"

Arthur'

.:'

age ,range of the ;subjects, was

the Binet 'test' and the Arthur per-

~dian Binet IQ' s ranged from' 83

a.nd 31.

ve~b~l

points higher than

,.,..

"I'

to

/",'

'

92' ,and the range of median

f..r~~ 89 to 129'.
~s

Cultural background,

it is reflected in the Dature of verbal tests,

would appear to depress the' scores of racial groups which are presumably
less familiar with cultural elements that a.re fairly commonplace with the
standardization ,groups.
-

..

Sho~d

"

!aci~i';group aoq~ire'

familiarity with

the cultui-al'backsr~und of the standardization group, it would 'follow

that

increased test scores should result.

~mpha,Sized' th~' 'i'DI.P01't 'of

by Garth '(86) who

He rep~rt'~d;'l~';193i,

su~r:icir to

imPort~nt;" tlia't' a
:~,:':~.l.'

fact that

I ' ,'.

:."

educatldn in teat performance.

tha'{ Indi~~ttendiOg;p~blic school 'were ~lightly

:rise' in

'IQ'~a~ '~s~~~iated with

01' course this latter

. . . . ~ ,~ .. ~~.".'

pro~otion
.

b~ the case

attendiilg"U~ited S~t~f;' Go:~~r~~n~ Scho~l'S ~nd,

those

grade to grade.

Such was found to

4 ..

',

more

progress in sohool

rel~t10nsh:i.p~ght
b~'
d~e
".' ",:
. :.
. '"
~,~:_.

n;'.... i,;O_ ':.

'~'..

to

f~om

th~

1'rom grade to grade had actu.a.llybeen the progressive

;'-

I,'

'1..>

,."

. /:. I

\,

':

.'

selection of brighter pupils rather than due to oultural learning whioh

might' Pa~~ ~nabled'hnproved

'intelligenoe test

~erformance.

A studY,by Davenport (6~), <;>f ch:ild;renln graqas 1, 2, and 3 is rele,:,

vant to this .pr.oblem.
'"

He, tested 210pairs:-ot,MeX19~n

siblings and 62
.
.
\

. '

pairs of non-Mexican siblings with the Goodenough Scale and found older
and younger
children in Mexican families to', be, muoh. less alike in' intel.
\
ligence than older and younger cliildren in n'on-Mexican familieS.

Corre-

lations betweeit'the' IQ' s; of siblings in, th:e former"'instance ''Were .25 and

:.51 .. :Although his sample of non;"Mexican siblings

was compar~ti vely 'small, he con~lUdad that Bome f8.ct'or' of importance had
in the 'latter inStance,

influenoed Mexlo~. h children, whioh Iiorma.J:ly did not 1D:fluence non-Mexioan

children in' the same grade s. - Gatth and Johnson' ( 87), liB ing the ot1s
Classifica-t'ion and the Otis IntellIgence Te~t8 in a study

of 683 Mexican

-20children in Texas

a~d

New Mexico, reported a median IQ of 78.

cent of the fourth grade subjects scored IQ's

~f

72 or lower.

~ifty

per

They noted

that the intelligence and achievement scores of Mexican children were

more

lik~

those of berican white children at

th~'

early

age~

but lesa

like them as they grew older. . The findings of both Davenport

and Garth
..
\..

and Johnson could be interpreted as instances where cultural learning

"
. ,.,:'
.
had influe~ced test performance. Sanchez (197) discussed this point of
view and warned against misinterpretation of mental ability differences
that would occur i f there is lack of community of experience between the
groups compared.
Studies by Hunter and Sommermier (122) and Garth (85) were investigations of the relationship of amount of Indian blood to mental test
score.

Hunter and Sommermier used the Otis Intelligence Test, and

Garth, the National Intelligence Test.

Both reported that scores tended

to decrease as amount of Indian blood increased, full-bloods tending to

rank lowest.

Garth made the suggestion that individuals lower in rank

probably used less English than those of higher rank.

Klineberg (1)4),

however, found no correspondence of score with degree of white blood

when the Pintner-Paterson series of 6 performance tests was given to
Indian and white children on the Yakima Indian Reservation.

He laid

special emphasis on the importance of the speed factor in interpreting

mental score differences between racial
.

grou~s.

longer with form boards but made fewer errors.

Indians, he found, took

He found no difference

between the Bcores of Indians and whites, however, because the Indians
apparently made up in'accuracy'forwhat they lacked in speed.
Thee Effect of Bilingualism on Test Score
Closely related to studies of the test scores ofrac1al groups
are,the

Btud~es

concerneQ.,with bilingualism and its association with

measured intelligence.
in East Chicago

wi~h

Seneur (204) tested 453 fourthgrade pupils

both the Haggerty Intelligence Test and the

that pupils from homes that

use a foreign., language tend to get results on the JIaggerty which indicate lower ability than they ev.identlyposse~8. ,The correlations

Pintner ,Non-Language

~st.

He,

co~c:l.ud~d

-21be~wee~

be

.64

scores on the Haggerty and the non-language te'st were found to

for the offspring of English-speaking parents, and

off~pring of foreign-language speaking parents.

.55 for the

Sanohez (196) found a

meqian IQ of 72 for a. small group of English-Spanish bilinguals enrolled

in the. second grade.

He was able to raise the median IQ from 72 to

approxima,telylOO by a two-year program of remedial instruction in

1ang~ge

and the

lang~ge

arts.

Pintner and Arsenian (179) found no statistically significant difference in the mental test soores of high and low bilingual groups.
population consisted of 469 native-bor~ Jewish ohildren in grades

Their

6 to 8,

who were matched for social status and divided into high and low bilingual
groups on

t~e

differe~ce

basis of the Hoffman BiIingwil Schedule.

The ratios of the

between mean scores for each group and the standard error of

the difference were

.68 for the Pintner Intelligence Test and .25 for the

Pintner Non-~nguageTest.. In ~nother study; (10), Arsenian reported

correlations of .20 between intelligence and social level, - .20 between
bilingualism and social level, and no relation between bilingualism and
intelligence.

This population consisted

01'1152

Amerioan-bo~

and 1196 American-born Jews aged 9 to 14 years.

Italians

Measures used were the

Hoffnan Bilingual Schedule, &n adaptation of Sims ScoreCard, the Pintner

Non-language Test, and the non-le.ilguage form of Spearman's Visual Perception Test.

Two independent studies published by Hill (120) and Spoerl

(220) reported finding no difference in average intelligence between

gioupaof bilinguals 8,nd monoglots.

The former studied an elementary

school population and the latter, a college population.

Both studies

might be criticized, however, for matching experimental and control

groups on a variable closely related to the experimental variable, e.g.,
matching on Henmon-Nelson Tests of MeIJ-tal Ability

~I).d

then making c0l!.1"

parisons on the basis of the Revised Stanford~Binet Form L (Spoerl) ~,.,

Summary
When various

r~cial

or national groups have been oompared with one

another, differences in performar:ce have frequently been foU!}d.

This is

true of studies where many grou;ps have been ranked according to mean or

-22-

or median test score, and of studies where omy' two or three groups have
been compared with one another.

When racial groups ~re ranked (as has

been the case in many of the earlier studies) differences are usually
very slight between groups adjacent in the hierarchy, but quite marked
between widely separated groups.

Studies comparing one group with

another have, in aome instances, reported

st~ti8tically 8ignifioa~t

dif-

ferences in measured intelligence; others have indicated little or no

differenoes.

In all studies, an overlapping of score distributions has

been qUite,consistentlyrepo:r--ted.
Marked differences in test scores have been reported between groups
Which can be presumed to differ Widely in cultural background, e.g.,
Indian va. American, Negro vs. American w'hite, Mexican vs. American.
Markeddi~ferences

in scores also appear to be associated with the use

of ve:rbal tests, while little or no differences seem to be associated

with non-language tests.
tYIles of measure.

This is supported by studies emploJring both

A faw studies provide

eVide~ce

for the view that a

difference in measured intelligence can be expected to diminish as the

one group becomes familiar, through the process of learning a.nd eXPerience, 'with certain cultural elements common to the other group.
Studies of the relation between bilingualism and measured intelligenoe seem to indicate that bilingualism in itself is probably not
strongly associated with mental score if the

ad~itional

factors of

socioeconomic status and English facility are also taken into account.
Brigham's obserw,tion, after many years of active research in this
general field, is apropos ,at this point:
For purposes of comparing individuals or groups,
it is apparent that tests in the vernacular must be
used only with individuals having equal opportunities
to acquire the vernacular of the test.

This require-

ment precludes the use of such tests in making comparative studies of individuals brought up in homes in which
the vernacular of 'the test is. not used, or in T..rhich two
vernaculars are used.

(32)

Occupation~

Group Comparisons

A second very frequently used method for differentiating one cultural

group f'romanother is to classify aocording to occupation of parent.

Per-

haps more comparative statistics and more studies of aptitude tests have
been published using this index than any other.
Methods of Oooupational Classification
T~ere

are a number of methods available for grouping occupations

into heirarchies f sooial clasB.

,

Many investigators have used systems

developed by previous investigators, others used them with minor

oh~es,

and still others invented their own occupational typing systems.

One of

the earliest systems for ocoupatio~~l tyPing was proposed by Taussig (229)
In1915.

His classification has been used by many investigators and is

situ occasionally used.

on a rather complete list

Barr (16) developed an ocoupational 80ale based

of specific oooupations that were

inte~ded

to

serve as reference points for typing non-listed occupations. Goodenough

and Anderson (100) descrribed the Minnesota Scale for Occupational Classificationin 1931.

This Bcale distinguishes between seven ocoupational

groups. Otherinvestigators h~ve'usea t~eclaseification system developed

at the Bureau of the Census: in 1937 by Edwards (73).

A mO;te recent revisio~

of Edwards' system was published by the Bureau of the Census (238) in

1950.
Score Differences among Occupational GroUEs
The rank+ng of occupationa.1 groups and their offspring according to
either :tr;lean or.median mental test score has been the concern of many
studies ever since Yerkes (249) and Yoakum and Yerkes (252) published
results of the First World War Army. intelligence testing.

Most of these

published papers (27,28, 45, 55, 57, 70, 72,91, 101, 105, 107, 119, 127,
140, 151, 185, 194, 198, 225, 227, 233) report the collection of mental
test .~oo~es for subjects ranging from early school to highschool age.
R~Bul.tB

have usually .beenanalyzed in terms of the central tendencies

andoverl~pping of

score distributions for the various ocoupational

-24classes.

A few studies present correlational measures of the relation-

ship between scores and occupational heirarchy.

findingsha~e

Almost universally,

been that, notwithstanding overlapping of 8core distribu-

tions, differences in means or medians exist between groupings based

on parentalocoupa-tion.

Differences between groups adjacent in the

hierarchy, however, have been found to be small and largely insignificant

statistically.

It has been demonstrated repeatedly that children of

professional fathers tend, on the average, to score markedlybigher on

mental tests than children of laboring fathers.
,

Correlation coeffi-

'

oients between occupational rank and intelligence score generally fall

between .25 and .35Studies of the test scores of high school seniors and college students have resulted in findings similar to those obtained with younger
subjects.

Byr:q.sf:l,nd Henman (41), in 1936, conducted an extensive study

of over 100,000 Wisconsin high school seniors over a five-year period.

~llsubjects wer~

grouped into nine major occupational categories and

all had been tested with one or another of the following:

Ohio State

Psychological Examination, ACE, and Henmon-Nelson Test of Mental Ability.

Higher scores were found to be associated with higher occupational rank.
Median percentiles for the nine groups

rang~d

from 50.0 to 68.5.

Ratios

of the difference to the probable error, for all comparisons, ranged

from 2.11 (Business and Clerical) to 73.33 (Farmer and Professional).
Present was much overlapping and a wide score range within groups.

The

correlation between test score and occupational rank was found to be .18.
The authors observed that the skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled groups
contributed more than

5CJfo of the cases above the general median and that

those groups ranking highest deviated farther from the general median
than the lowest groups.

Livesay (146) grouped almost 2,000 Hawaii high

school seniors into five occupationa.l groupings based on the Taussig

system.

All 'had taken the' ACE.

occupational' rank decreased.

from 3.27 to 16.36.

Mean scores were found to decrease as

Critical ratios for all comparisons ranged

The" difference between the means of the skilled and

semi-skilled groUps was not great) the highest critical ratio obtained

waa::forthe professional-skilled compariBon~ '.Bear (20) using Otis Higher

Examination scores for 94 entering~f'reBbmen,: Gillis (93), using Thorndike
Intelligence Testscoresaocumulated;at Barnard'College cover a six.;.year
period, and Glass' (95) ,using Thuretone 'Psychological Examination scores
for 1118 college students; all 'foundtha:t scores, ,tended to decrease., on
the average, as occupational rank decreased. Canady (42), Haught (109),
and Smith (214) reported essentially similar findingswlth respect to ACE
scores and ocoupational rank. Roberts (191) 'reported that upper-sooiallevel Negro oollege freshmen, as determined by the Minnesota Ocoupationa.l
Soale, tended to e~ higher ACE scores than lower-sooial-level studente.
Healso noted tha.t North and South differences were more marked than
either social-level or veteran-nOnveteran differences,
scor~

Differences amoBfl Grou~s Classified According to Income and Educational.Levels

A few studies have considered the relationship between intelligence
Bcoreandeither level of ~rent8.l inoome or level of parental education.
Since both of these indices are closely related to ocoupational'level,
studies involVing
them are inoluded in
this
section, Terman et a1. (232)
,
.
.
reported the mean parental income of a thousand gifted ohildren to be
above the average for the ,pqpulation at large, Stroud (227.) .studied
l;0575-to l8-year-old white children in a poor farming section. He reported;a correlation of .25 between Pressey Cla~sifioation Testsoore
and"family eoonomic level. Book (27), who studied a eta te-widepopulationofhigh school seniors, found that the most intelligent seniors did
not come from the wealthiest group although more seniors earning average
and high average 800res came from the wealthier than the non...w ealthy
homes.' Only a emallpercentage of seniors from familiee of annual income a below $1,000 (1922) earned'the. higher intelligenoesoores.. Frederiksen a.nd' Schrader, (82), in their study of 10,000 vetera.ns, reported a slight
but'fa.irly consistent tendency for predictions of the a.ohievement of stu.. '
dent'sf'rom lOWer incbme groups to be underestimates of achievement in
-

cbllege~

. -26Joodenough (98).using a sample of 380' 18-

to54-~onth-old c}:lildren

found a correlation of' .35 between educational. level of parent and

score on the Kuhlman revision cif the Binet . ,Frederiksen and

Sc~ader

(82) reported no, .statistically signifioant ,relat;J.onship: betwee.n amount

of father'.s education and Adjusted Avera'ge Grade, which is a measure

based on both scholastio'aptitude test score and college achievement.
The faOt that they were dealing with a college population, suggests .that
family background and the

rea~lting

individual motivations teaded to

bring about morehomogene:!,ty with respect ",,0 amount offather.ls educa-,

tion than would be the case for the population-at-l.a.rge.

Bayley (17).

reported some interesting results of testing 61 preschool children.at

each of several age levels.

The correlation between level of parental

education and mental test score was found to be -.22 in infancy, increasing sharply during the age of'one and two years, and remain'ing between .41 and .50 during the third year.

At first glance Bayley'-s find-

ings suggest that level of parental education bas some direct effect on
,

"

the measured 'ability of young offspring.

However, education of parent

may merely be a rough index of the level of abUity which the child
may be expected to reach maturation-wise.
Factors Involved in Score Differences amaAS OccuFational.Groups
Jordon (13l), in 1933, reported the usual finding that mental test
standing tends to'be associated with level of parental occupation, but
in addition to this, he found that from the ages of about 6 to 13, the'
.IQ's of the millworkers' children, in. his total sample of 1,200, de,creased more rapidly than those of non...millworkers' children, a drop
of 100 to 85'ascompared to a'drop of 101 to 91.

However, in 1940;

Shuttleworth (209) concluded that socioeconomic differences.inIQ do not

have a cumulative effect in crae,.ting prOgrE;lssively'larger IQ differences
.for the same children, over a, period of ten yeara

Jordon's finding

'suggests that. the drop in IQ for the millworkergroup was.one produced

partly by a unique home and neighborhood milieu exerting its influence
over a number of years.

In that environment may be any combination of

factors related to experience and motivation which affect test perform-

';'27-

ance.

In seeking a possible: :general "explanation of score differences

among occupational groups, one must not, however, lose sight of a continuous process of selection that:,vag,likely:

opera~~s

and,'whereby the

less intelligent actual:ly sift down into,;the lower; level occupations.

Shuttleworth's observation of stable, IQ differences among social levels
,would be entirely consistent with,8uchan explana:tion.

It is likely

tl?at both environmental and selective' ',~vents"operate to produce score

differences among groups classified according,

~o

ocoupational level of

parent.
Summary
Various methods for oocupational classifioation are available.

Dif-

ferences' in mental test score have repeatedly been found between groups
of children variouslY classified acoording to Parental ocoupation.

In"

general, score distributions have been found to overlap and reported correlations between score andoccupatidnal rank falibetwee~ .25 and

.35.

Similar trends have been found in studies of the relation'oftest score

to 'bbth ;Level of par'enta.l income arid level of parentaleducation.

Score

differences among groups'a.re probably due Part'ly 1;0 the operation of

differing background factors and partly to a selective process whereby
the less itltelligenttend to"gravitate toward the lower-level ocoupations.

-28Rura~-Urban Comparisons

Score Differences between Rural and Urban Groups

The differences between rural and "urban cultures is striking enough
so that certain of the differences have become "the basis for many humorous
stories.

Quite obviously many investigators have siezed upon the possi-

bilities of making rural-urban comparisons along various psycholpgical

dimensions . As a result, rural-urban studies are almost as old-as psychological measurement itself.

Many investigations of the mental ability

of rural and urban children have shown that the mental scores of urban
subjects tend to be higher than those of rural subjects.
Among these a~e studies by Pintner (175), Pressey and Thomas ().86) ,
Pressey (184), Irion and Fisher (123), Koch and Simmons (139), and Klineberg (135).

Pintner reported the median index of intelligence for 154

rural school children to be 10% below the median at: an urban group.
sampl~

Pressey and Thomas found .that 2?f, of their rural

the norm for urban children.

tested above

In another paper, Pressey reported that

2'C/o of 183 rural children, aged 6, 7, and 8years,scored above the median
for age as determined from urban children.

Irion and Fisher found that

the median score for their sample of 361 rural children, between

~he

ages of 11 and 16 years, waa 10 points below the urban norm on the basis
of the National rnte11igence Test.

Koch and Simmons, in a study pre-

viously cited, compared the mean scores for urban and rural children
between the ages of 8 and 15 years.

Tested were 294 urban and 326 rural

children of native American stock, as well as 270 urban and 180 rural
children of Mexican stock.

The test used was either the National Intel-

ligence Test or the Detroit Intelligence Tests.

Results indicated a

superiority in favor of the urban groups to the extent shown in the

following table.
Comparison
Urban American and Rural Amerioan
Urban Mexican and Rural MeXican

Range of Difference
between Means for
Each Age Level
0 - 23
17 - 28

Bange of
Critioal Ratio
.2 -

5.4

3.8 - 10.1

-29As a result of his etudyof

10~

to

l2-y.ea;t'-old,.Euro;p.e~n.boys,

tested with

a performance...type test; Klineberg fOund. the differencebetweep- the mean o'f

the urban sample .of. 300 and the
times 1ts ,standa:rd error.

~al sampl,e

of 700 to be over eight

.In terms of overla.pping, only.3<J1, of' the' rural

childre~"reaohed.or exce~ded

themed;f.an,:.of the .u;rl>an children

. Scholastic aptitude test scores 'ofruralari.d urban samples of college age'have been compared ina few isola.ted studie~~Nelson (166),
using the ACE, found an urban group of 580 college entrants~' to be signif'icantlyhigher in. average totaJ.score than the 'rural group of 466 .

In a

study by Smitp (21.5), who worked with University: .of Kansas studeIlts, ACE
peroE;'lntiles .showed a slight tendency to decrease with distance from .urban
centers.

TurnQ~ (237) reported'r-t?suJ:t;s of, a study of the first Army-

Nayy C9llege QualifyiJ?g TeBt~ . An' analysis of variance showed that the
dif'fere:p.ces were signii'icj:l.ntly in. favor: of thl.;l urbap. sample, especially
in the verbal are~.

FurthermorE!, differenCes between groups depE;'lnded on

indiyidual items r.ather than on type of testn:JB,teria:i.., Frederiksen and

Schra<ie,;r

(82),

however,fol.md no clear trend. in the relationship between

size of' community.. and tendency.fol:'

bet~er

achievement in college than

h&d been indicated by certainp.J:'edictj,ve measures.

NumerouB other reports of rural-urban comparisons in menial ability
have appeared in the literature. ' Predominant findings have been that
lower'scoreBon mental tests appear to beassoc1ated with'~ r~al environment( 15; 23, 90,114, 152:;' 187) ~
Fa.ctorsInvolved in .ScoreDiffer.ences .between Rural audUrban Groups
A: few studies 'haye noted certa,1.n v:a.r.ia.b;Les that seemed. to
operating so aato
at least

pJ:'odu~e r\1I'al~urban

tw:o.~Jtpla.natlon!3 ,t,.o

be offered.

dlffere;lloes.in

h~ve

ment~lscore,

been
and

e.coount for; these measured differ.ences can

The. no.w cla.aa1c pape;r. 9Y Gordon (102) q;e~+ip.g witl:l.me~tal

test .reau],ts anq...ao.h.ol:ar;ship.:of. :gypsY.a.n.d.ca.na.l boat ohildren, Wheeler's

(245) .~tudy .of' (t~e , inte:q"igence of :;1..;147 moUIftain children~ 1930,
Edw.ar.da anel Jon~sl(74),r~por.t of ~.f.:t~;Lds.t:udy:of. another ~oup of
mounta.in~.hil~~, and others;.demons.trat~d):t~t.

chil.dren living .in

geographically isolated areas Show adecreaee in measured IQ with age.

In 1932, Jones; Conrad, and Blanohard (130) reported a similar trend.
An item-analysis of test results for samples of rural and urban children
showed increased differences with age between the groups with respect,
to verbal items.

The authors remarked that while verbal' items may be

regarded as good components for a measure of

i~telligence

in a common

environment, in widely differing environments they become a good index

.of environment.
Papers by Shimberg(208) and Asher (14) focus attention on the misleading outcomes that might be obtained when tests standardized on one
group are applied to other groups.

In 1929, Shimberg reported results

of his investigation into the validity of nOrms with reference to urban

and rural groups.

He constructed two information tests, standardizing

one on a ruralgroup, and the other on an utoban group.

When both 'tests

were administered to 4,812 rural children in grades 3 to 12, and to

962 urban children in grades 4 to 7, the urban group was found to be
one year retarded on the basis of the test standardized on the rural
group 'and vice versa..

Differences in both instances were significant

to the extent that the ratios of the dif'ference to the standard error
ranged from 5.56 to 9.33.

Asher's 1935 report of his study of the in-

telligence of Kentucky mountain children concludes that the then..avai1-.

able

in~elligence

group.

tests had been inadequate for,use with that particular

Klineberg (136) demonstrated, with a Negro population, t h a t ,

significant increases in measured intelligence are associated with length

of residence in New York City after. migration from smaller southern communities.

Among the teats administered to 3,00Q: 10-to12.-year' old.Negro

children, .were the Stanford-Binet and the National Intelligence Test. '
Age, sex, and socioeconomic background were controlled.

Klineberg

~e

ported that as' length of residence in New York City increased from one
to over eight years, the mean score on.theNatd.onal Intelligence Test
increased from'72 to 92, and the mean BinetIQincreased from 81 to 87.
The extreme'differences in these means
of confidence.

In

i940,

are

significant at a high level'

Wheeler (246) repeated his Btudyofthe intel-

-31ligence of mountain children.

He tested :3,252 children in the sa.mearea

and compared .the re.sultsrwith the similar study he made. 10 years earlier.
He found about thesa.me rateof decline in IQ with increase in age from

6 to 16 years (about twopoints,each'year)"'However, the 1940 mountai:Q.

ohild was found to be mentally superior to his' 1930 prototype.' at all ages
and all grades, an average increase in IQ 01'10 pointso 'Wheeler a.lso
noted that during the,deca.de intervening between'histwostudiee there
had beende:t'inite:Unprovement .in the economio:,:social,.and educational
status, of' this. mountain area" and that improved test scores are apparently
associated with improvement in environmental conditions. The foregoing
studies, could ma.keafairly g00d case for the position that restricted
oulttU'al interoourse between groups is reflected in'testacore differenoes, especially when the measure being used has been standardized on
a. population oulturally similar to only one of the groupso

A second explanation for rural-urban differences inmea.sured intelligenoe is

t~t

the more intelligent individuals in the rural. population

tend to migrate to the larger cities leaving behind the less intelligent.

A number of studies appear to support this hypothesis of selective migration. Gist and Clark (94) followed up 2,544 rural-Kansas high school
pupils 13 years after they had been tested with Terman Group'Tests of
Intelligence.
centers, and

Of those located, roughly

6f1o

in rural areaso

361>

were living in urban

On the average, the migrants to urban

centers were those who had scored higher, when tested 13 years previously,
than those who had rems.ined in a rural environment.

Also, those who had

migrated to large cities surpassed those who had migrated to' smaller
cities.

Differenoes in

L~itial

IQ were

at~tistically

signifioant.

Thomson. (234) found fewer high IQ I S i'n rur~l English communities aocessible to cities than in

compa:r~ble

oommunities more remotely situated.

Smith (215) fOl.L~d a slight tendenoy for the ACE percentiles of University
of Kansae students to decrease with increasing distance from large urban
centers. Papers by Sanford (199) ~ Ml.uldin Cl.55} also lend support to
the seleotive migration hypothesis.

Summary
Studies of rural-tn"ban differences-1nintelligence and scholastic
aptitude yield evidence in favor of linking higher.scoree :with urban
residence. Statistically significant differences between rural and
urban samples have often been reported.- Overlap of "score distributions
has also been found. Two possible explanations for these score differ-
ences stem from a number of studies: Environmen't&l differences may
operate so aeto instn"e superior test performance for the group which
happens to be closest culturally to the population on which the test
~d been standardized.
Secondly, selective migration may operate eo
that the les8 intelligent remain in the rural setting while the mentally
superior gravitate to the cities,

-33School Comparisons
A number of studies have reported results of comparing mental test
Bcores of groups of individuals with school backgrounds of various types.
Commonly considered school characteristics are size of school, location
of school in good or poor socioeconomic neighborhood, and public or
pI" ivate school.
Score Differences between Pupils Enrolled in Small and Large Bchools
Size of high school is enough related to the rural-urban categorY
that it might have been included in the previoue section.

However,

school size in itself may not necessarily be colinear with rural-urban

location if one takes into account the occurrence of large rural consoliddted schools and relatively small decentralized urban schools.
Allison and Barnett (4 ) divided college students into three groups
according to. size of high school attended.

Thetr groups consisted of

282 liltudents from small schools (enrol3:ments les's than 150), 435 students
f'r9m schools of intermediate size (enrollments from 150 to 500), and 283
students from large schools (enrollments of 500 and over). ,There was
considerable overlapping yet differences in the mean Q and L scores of
the ACE. were found to be statistically significant.

All differences

were in favor of the larger schools for all comparisons.

They reported

a correlation of .372 between gross score and size of high school enrollment.

Findings in greater detail were as follows:

High School Comparisons

Critical Ratio of
Q Score Difference

Critical Ratio of
L Score Difference

Small and Intermediate

3.73

5.59

SIlia.11 and large

759

10.48

Intermediate and Large

4.40

4.97

Abstracts of studies by Smith (216) and Feder (76) indicate similar findings.

In Smithts Btu~. small Bchoois were defined as having enrollments

less than 250 and large s~ho,ols,more than 250. It was reported that
mean scores were significantly higher in mental, history, and English

tests for pupils from the larger schools than thoae from smaller schools.
In Feder's study of entering college freshmen, students from large high
schools scored higher on qualifying examinations than those from small
high schools.
Score Differences between Pupils of Schools Located in Socioeconomicallz
Good and Poor Locales
The variable of good versus poor neighborhood with respect to grade
school location is so entangled with 'the, broader issue of socioeconomic'
class that, except for convenience in presentation, it should probably
be discussed in the subsequent sections.

Nevertheless, it is included

in this section partly because the original studies emphasized school

as the pI'incipal variable.
One of the earliest studies comparing groups of pupils enrolled in
good and poor institutions was reported in 1912 by Weintrob and Weintrob

(243).' They reported results of administering the Binet-Simon Tests to

70 pupils enrolled in a"well-to~do" neighborhood school, 70 enrolled
in a less prosperous neighborhood school, and 70 orphans living in the
very limited cultural environment of an orphanage.

Findings, presented

as histograms of score distributions, indicated much overlap among the

three groups

When the three inatitutions were ranked according to

number of "high ll scorers contributed by each, the culturally best a.nd

the culturally poorest were in the lea.d.

In view of the small and in-

consistent differences, the investigators concluded that their study

did not show a definite positive relationship between this index of
social status and intelligence test score.

Yerkes and Anderson (250),

in 1915, and Bridges and Coler (30), in 1917, also compared the scores
of children attending schools in good neighborhoods with those of
children attending schools in poor neighborhoods.
based on Yerkes-Bridges Point Scale scores.

~oth

studies were

Yerkes and Anderson exam-

ined 54 kindergarten and first grade pupils in each of the two groups.
Differences between mean scores, which were in favor of the good
neighborhood group, 'were 7~7 for the boys and 8.4 for the girls.
.investigators noted that

wh~n only

the

The

6'-ye~-~lds were 'considered,

all

-35of .the boys in the uni'avored group were below the, average for., boys of the
aameage in the favored group and that only twe of the girls in the unfavored group were above the average for the favored-group girls.

In

their stUdy, Bridges and-Coler e.xa.mined288 pupils enrolled in grades 6,

7, 8,

9, and 10 of two schools.representing extremes in sooioeconomic

status and school facilities.

Differences between mean Bcores for eaoh

group at each grade level were 12.6, 14~0, 12.6, 13.9 and
tivelyo

T.4

respec-

All differences were in favor' of the good sohool-good neighbor-

hood group.
Score Dii'ferences between Public
and Private School Students
,
A few studies have been published concerning the relationship be-, .

tween test score and type of secondary school attended--public or private.

ha~ing

The. general picture has been that although students

private school

preparation, as compared to those having publio school preparation, tend

to score higher on entrance exam:1.nations, they do! as a group, show somewhat inferior academic performance in c~llege.
reported

t~t

In 1922, Ande~son (8)

students in a certain private school tended to score higher

on the Army Alpha than students enrolled in several midwestern public

schools

Differenoes for all aeconda;ry grade levels were consistent and

of the ~ame order.

The senior class results are given beiow to illustrate

the pattern of differences.

Subjects
Pr ivate Sen;1ors'

Public Seniors

Median

Q4

75
242

142

156

166

115

134

150

The public s'chool mean for seniors was exceeded by

~ch'o~i

seniors'. ,In 1926,

' .

Jo~~ B

(128) comb fuea.

8"

of the prIvate

~de~Bon' B

I;

Alpha results from another private preparatory, school.

de. t8. with Army

The medians for

".

90 private school seniors and 1,215 public school seniors were found to
..
be 152 and 120 respectively, the differenoe being greater thati. ten t:iJnes
",

'the,p.robab1e

~rror. spence~.(219),

in

i927, reported the.t students in

.
four Yale classes who prepared in public Bchools were superior to those
"

who

prepar~d

in pr:l.vate-'schoo:Ls in intelligence, academic grades ;, fre-

-36quencyof graduation, and freedom from resignation.

Individuals in the

private school group, however, tended to score higher on entrance examinations.

Differences between means, in all instances,were reported to

be at least three times the standard error.

Anderson (7), on the other,

hand, found that themed.ian intelligence test scoreefor 131' Yale freshmen from privateschools and

254

from public schools were practioally

identical, and further, that the two score distributions coincided aline,st
perfect1y.

Seltzer (203), in 1948, reported that mean SAT and' MAT scores

for Harvard students from three different types of secondary school background were so similar as to be practically equal.

His data show, in

terms of ,academic performance;' that about 13% of the public school graduatesfailed in camparison to 19% of the private day-school graduates and
26% 'of the pri~te boarding school gradUates. The percentages 'of i~d1
viduals in each of the respective groups who gained the deans list are
about 39, 28, and 17.

Frederiksen, Olsen, and Schra'd.er (81) studied

first semester grade predictions of 141 Kenyon College freshmen and reported intercorrelation coefficients for various' predictors, first semester average grades, English composition grades and tyPe of preparatory
school attended.

Correlations indicate practically no association be-

tween tyPe of school (pUblic or private) and both ACE and Scholastic
Aptitua.e Test performance.
reported:

Coefficients of the following order were

SAT-Verbal .03, SAT-Mathematical -.03, ACE-Quantitative -.18,

ACE-Linguistic

.06, and ACE-Total -.00. Positive correlations indicate

that higher scores are associated with

atten~nce

at private schools;

negative correlations indicate that higher scores are assooiated with

public school attendance.

Frederiksen and Schrader (82), in their study

of ten-thousand veterans, reported some tendency for the kind of student

who prepared for college in private schools to achieve
be expeoted from predictive tests.

b~low

what would

For this aspect of the study, they

used four groups from three, colleges (:freshman classes from two of the
college~ and both freshman an~ sophomore classes from the third).

These

four groups were :further divided into veteran and nonveteran categories
maki~ eight groups in all.

In seven of the ei~t compa.~isons of private

school graduates with graduates of other types of schools, private

school graduates, on the average, earned lower Adjusted Academic Grades

(a measure based on both aptitude test score and college achievement)
than the public school graduates.

The difference was:significant at the

level in two of thesei~6tances, and ina third ,instance ,at the 5'fo
level. The 00 currence of seven out of eight differences in one direction

l~

was found to be significant at only the lCJ1, level of confidence. It is

more than likely that private school-public school differences reflect
the operation of other variables such as selection factors at both the
secondary and college levels, moti'vational factors, home ,l>ackground
..factors and probably certain factors having to do with'a school' a
'emphaais or. lack of emphasis on equipping students tosur.mount the
entrance requirements of the "best It ( colleges.
Summar;'

Individuals who attend larger schools and schools located in higher

,
socioeconomic neighborhoods, as compared to those who attend smaller'
<

school's arid :schools iIi. 'lower Booial status neighborhoods, have been found
.

. " .

to score higher on intelligence. tests.

tions has also been fOUnd.

"

Overlapping of score distribu-

Discounting the two studies (8, 128) Which

compared ~tudents enrolled in public secondary schools with students enrolled iri two specific private schools (small in size and noted for their
very highly selected student bodies) the general pattern seems to be
th~t college students trom public schools tend ,to earn iIitelligence

test' scores equal to or slightly betterthai1 thosefroin'private schools;

private school graduates, on the other hand, tend to do better on entrance
exa.m~t.ions and to underachieve academicaJ.J.y. , Overlapping of diatributioI+sappears:t.o be cqnsistently present.

In studies based on school

comPEiXisons, :factors other than :size, "location and type very likeJ..y
,Among these are,:; aocioeconomic factors and fac.tors'related to
selection and motivation. :,

ope~(3.te.

Socioeconomic- Class. Comparisons

Nature of COmPosite Social Status Indices
. Soc ioeconomic:status ..has frequently beenevaluated by means of COInl'posite ind-ices madeup,of sever,al variables.

'Incorporated into' such '

composite scales are1'actors such as parental' occupation and. education,

income, home .ownership, dwelling area, and the like

Composite scales

apparently were developed when a need was felt for a more oomprehellBive
index 0,1' soc tal status than was po ss1ble through theuae of anyone of .
the component elements' considered by :J.tself

Factors ,making up composite

indices have 'beengiven differential or unitary weights.

Composite sC'ales

differ from one another inthe'kinds of ,variables'incorporated'anddn

systems of weighting.
t~e

Terman et a1. (.2.31) in their standardization of

of

t~e

Binet-Simon Scale, used

tea9he~s~

1916 revision

ratings of pupils' social

stat~B.

Wil~iams

(247), . in 1916, described

one of the- earliest composite scale?,
','.
.
the Whittier Scale for Grading Home Co~ditions. This scale !equire~ the

rating of various aspects of home environment.

Other similar and well-

1 , '

known scales, also based on home surroundings,are Chapin's (49)

Minnesota Home Status Index described by'Leahy
(142).
.

,a~d

the

Less well
known
,

are the scales described b:y Burdick (37) and McC9rmicl( (156) which
depend upon ratings of
ing.

ho~

possessions and circumstances of fami+y liv-

Most of these scales are used primarily for evaluating the back-

grounds of young,er children.

Chapman and Sims (50), in 1925, reported their. deve10pmentofa
method for measuring socioeconomic

status:byrat:L~

certain cultural,

economic, .and educational factors in family, living obtained from questionnaires filled in by the subjects.

Sims (2l0),in 1928,described

the Sims Score Card which has been recognized as an improvement over
the earlier scale.
popularity.

These latter two scales have achieved considerable

The University of California Socia-economic Index described

by Bayley and Jones (19) results in a weighted average .for ra.tings of

family income, parents' schooling, Taussig

classification of father's

~39-

occupat1Q!h home, ..:L#.ving room,.".aJt.d1neigq.bo:r:p.ood.... Scales 'des~.ib.ed by .

Skodak (213) an.d. Van AJ.s:tYne, {g39:L.~o . n,otE!t;ressmater~al,po6BeBBi.on8.aB
much )~B

ot~er inta.ng.i,.bl~,.,ta.Qtl?rsi?uch

O:f.~.:t~~. home;~

as, cl.i+tl.It:'alaud eCiucationr;t.l level.

'f'hemo~t rEi'oent:+Y:d:e;velq~9-.methqd.

for

meAs~ing. social

B::t;~,tUB is .~scribe;d, in <.a. .recent, bos>.k byW~er., Meeker, and Eells (242).
WarnEi3r.' B Ind?:xof, Sta;t~ Cbaracts:l'isti,c.a.is
for rank of

par~~taloocupation} hq:use

baB~d

o?J,a weighted

av~rage

type,dwelling area and source

of inoome, parental occuPE\-tion .being ,the most heavily weighted. .The

author6're~ommend that the,;yre~ta" be recalouiilted ~6r each dif'ferent

comm~ity 8.t~di~d, but'E6'lls'~~aL '(75) repo~t~d' us:Lng 'Warner's

,

'

varia-

I'

bles unitarily weighted with apparent success.

SooreDifferences among Sooioeconomic Classes
Studies conoerning the reJ..ationship between intelligence scores and
background, as measured by oomposite socioeconomic indioes of various
types, show a trend similar to that of' studies. employing parental 9ccuationas an. only index of sooial background. ,In general} numerous. of the
studies of' children :t'rom preschool to a~oleecent age

;:: ,: :.'.

".'

,::' \:

:'.'.:

:. "."

r,::

'...

.;' ,. ,

~.'

(10, 38, 51,. 52,

~

..-'.

~.,

75, ~o, 83, 84, 110, 112, 114, 116, 138, .141) 200,205, 211, 228, 239)

me~tal'teat a~o:res 'to be :rel~tedto s~cioeconomic1e~elto a

Po's1tive but l~w degree. Correlations r~e from about .20 to .50.
report

A.1Bioet all

r~:p~rt statisti~iiy B'i~fric~t: ~r'near

'Bki:t'i~ant
;Uf'f'er.
.
.'

, ' .

~.

enees among. gr~UPB although overlapping of Bcore distributions is a

usual finding.
S.tudies

of

groups of' ~ inq.ividuals. of high

lrlgher tea.t scores 'fjo

beasso.~,iat~~ 'rit.h

ence~

18 ,QOO.:jun~or:l).~ghBchool

IIj,s d~tacq~W16t .'ofKuh;J.mar.i."A:nQ.er~on IQ "s,and ?im~ 8oei~1,clasa

;rati~Bo .

f'or,~!;I.9h
..

age likewise show

hi611er 'socioeconomic level .

CO;l~J.l (54) stud.i~da nati0l18:J, sample of'

pupiis..

sc~o~l

,On. ,the pasis of

the;~dj,aI;

andtha ;t'iratand. third qlUl,rt1-Jes

of' the .three Boc;1oeoonq:miolev.eJ:e

. .
. . . , ..h,e ,;reported :J;'eliabled,iffer.
.
.

.in IQ f'aypringtlle.higher,

,~.

aoc~oecQnom~c,.grquP~.~:mIQ .d:~f'f'er ..

enoe.s range(Lf'~<?m 6.63 (n~nth gradepoys.) ~o 14.,52.. (Beve~th grade:gir1a).

Jank~ and l:la~~ghur8t(125)aaml~stt;lreda.variety

:01'.

both y.erJ:>~l al;lduQn-

-40verbal tests to the l6-year-bld boys and girls of' a given community.
They reported no significant differences among social classes for
mechanical assembly test scores, but in all other tests, higher scores
for subjects from families of higher statue.

That part of their results

concerned with the Revised Stanford-Binet, the performance tests of the

Weschler-Be11evue, and the Minnesota Paper Form Board are

g~ven

below.

Highest social class is represented as I and lowest as IV.

Class
Comparisons

I and II
I and III
I and IV
II and III
II and IV
III and IV

Stanford-Binet
Critical Ratios
above 2.5

Weschler-Bellevue
Performance
Critical Ratios
above 2.5

Paper Form Board

Critical Ratios
above 2.5

3.3
4.7
4.1

4.0

3.3
3.9

2.7

An abstract of a study by Cuff (58) indicates that when 758 college fresh-

men were grouped according to socioeconomic status by means of the Sims

Scale, students having higher socioeconomic centiles tended also to have
higher ACE scores and records of better academic achievement.

The author

noted that reliable prediction of intelligence and scholarship from

socioeconomic status is almost impossible.

Portenier (18,) reported that

when over 500 University of Wyoming freshmen were grouped into socioeconomic levels by means of both the Sims scale and certain of the items
appearing on the personal data sheet accompanying the Ohio State Psychological Examination, the correlation between socioeconomic standing and
OSPE'score was - .0, for all freshmen and .09 for Wyoming high school
graduates Osborn (167) admini~tered social and economic background
questionnaires to 1,161 students enrolled in three midwestern colleges.
ACE scores for two of the colleges and OSPE scores for the third were
stUdied in relation to certain socioeconomic factors.

Students with

superior standing on the academic ability tests showed a tendency to

have better educated parents and parents with higher incomes, to come

-41from larger towns and smaller families having more and newer modern convenience~, and to be more widely travelea~
. .'.

. . ' : ..:

I' .

,.

:.

.' '.

..

.: :

.::

. ' f'

'.

No

mea~ure8 of the statistical

'. '. "

significance of the differences were given.

Score Differences among Socioeconomic Groups as a Function of Item Type
The analysis of test score differences between upper and lower
socioeconomic grO~ps has been'the'con~e~n of some:tecently published re-

In"l948 Da~is and HarlghGrst'(65) showed that score differences

search.

between highest and lowest soci6ecorio~ic levele(Warner's Indei of Status

Charact~ristic~) we~e grea~er 'f~:f teats' like the Helimon:Nelson, TermanMcNemar, and Thurstone Reasoning thah for the non':'verbal Otis Alpha and
Thurstone Spatial Relations:

Average score differences, in favor of the

highest soCioe~onomic group, ranged from 5.9 '(otis Alpha, non-verbal)

to 16.4 (Terman-McNemar).

Items invoiving cl~ssification of concepts,

recognition of opposites and analogies, and syllogistic reasoning were

more frequently passed by high-social-level subjects than low-social,

level subjects.

The percentages of items in each test, showing socio-

economic differential,ranged from 46 for the non-verbal Otis Alpha to

100 for the Terman-McNemar and ThurstoneReasoning tests.

Saltzman's

findings (195), some seven years earlier, were of the same order.

First

grade children of higher social status scored higher on verbal tests

than those of lower status.

Children of high social status were superior

in Binet items involving vocabulary, verbal composition, rote memory,

motor control, and similarities and differences; low social status
children excelled in counting, money handling, and sensory discrimination.
Among the major findings reported in the monograph, Intelligence and
Cultural Differences (75) by Eells and others, was that about 5f1{o of the
items in certain Widely-used tests for 9- and 10-year-01ds, and about
85% of the items in the tests for 13- and 14-year-01ds show differences
between high and low status groups large enough to be significant
the l'{o level.

~t

Mean differences, in favor of the high status groups,

were found to be largest for verbal items and smallest for picture,
geometricdesign, and stylized drawing items.

The authors note that

almost all of the verbal items, associated with large status differences,

-42appear to involve academic vocabulary, Bchpol learning, and material

that is more likely to become familiar to high status pupils than low

status pupils.
Summary
Ii. variety of composite social class indices were mentioned and

described.

Comparisons among groups classified according to various of

these indices have revealed trends similar to those fotmd in studies

where parental occupation has been used as an only index of social
level.

Correlation coefficients reported between composite social-

class indices and intelligence scores range from .20 to .50.

Higher

social class rank has also been found to be associated with higher
scores on scholastic aptitude tests.

Although score distributions

usually overlap, differences between means, in many instances, are

statistically significant.

It has been shown that individuals of

higher sooial status tend to score higher on the more verbal and
abstract test items than lower status individuals who tend to excel
on non-verbal and practical tasks.

Discussion
... Methodological sho~tcomings of one type or ~nother,~s well as, differing experimentaldesigns, render many of the results, of the reviewed
studies not strictly comparable. Notwithstanding both these difficulties
~d the seemingly contradictory findings of a few of the studies, the
bulk of the evidence indicates that cultural backgrotmd, on the average,
tends to influence scores on intelligence and scholastic aptitude testso
The, effect of this influence, as reflected in group tendencies, has, in
many instances, been shown to be qUite marked and in others, practically
non..exlstent. In general, the pattern seems to be that group differences
in test scores approach significance as the compared groups become more
diverse with respect to the culturally determined operations included in
the comparison meas1lTe., The significance of the differences, however,
must be considered from a social as well as a statistical ,point of view.
Differences would be significa.nt iIi. a. sooial sense if cultural influence
led to scores whioh were later found to lead to inaccurate predictions.
, The problem can be defined in twowaya. From one point of view,
the problem is to measure a human attribute with equal precision from
one group of. human bei~s to anOther, notwithstanding cultural factors
which may at the same time differ from group to group. From the second
point of view, the problem is to, predict, on the basis of'tes.t,-results,
future performance or behavior. as acoura.tely as possible. In theiatter
instanoe, the influence of factors outside the test become sources Qf
concern when the accuracy of prediction 1s advers~ly affected by them.
These two views. of the problem frequently become'entangled in discussions
of the effect oi' ~ultural,background.on ,test scores and the rationale,
of culture-free tests.
When viewing the problem in 'the fi~st way, it is sometimes difficult.to avoid l"egarding intelligence '(or a.ptitude) as an entity, and
then to proceed seeking this will-o-the':'wisp essence among elements that
are conunon to all cultures. But intelligence (and aptitude) is a psychological construct that has been inferred from observable operations; it

-44does not have an independent existence.

a"ble and measurable operations.

It must be anchored to observ-

The task of finding operations commOll

to many cultures, to which one can anchor the construct and still define
it as intelligence, appears to be a weighty task.

Perhaps COmllJOn

~1e

ments oreopers.tions cam 'be established as anchor points for the construct
lIbasic intelligence."

On the other hand, perhaps intelligence in Culture

A is n.ot intelligence in Culture B and so on, and a better way of regarding

intel1igence~ wouid

be Culture A Intelligence, Culture B

Int~lligence,

and so on.
To view

the

problem in the second way perhaps would be to accept

cultural influence, even welcome it and any other factors that might increase precision (')1'

p~ediction.

This would not necessarily be a denial

that certain cUlt~al and background factors unfortunately and perhaps

even unjustly handicap the performance of members of certain groups, not
only on predictive tests but also on defined and real criteria.
ThUS, if the line of investigation is in the direction of attempting

tob011 down all of the intelligence tests (or specific types of

other aptitude tests) into some common denominator that can be denoted
a test of true intelligence or culture-free intelligence--inte11igence
presumably defined by operations that the naked cultureless human being
holds in oorm:nenwith other naked culturelesB human beings--we hi:l.ve a
'Vastly different problem than if the investigation is heading in the
d1r~ction of examining our admittedly culture-bound tests in order to
j .
.

determine whether cultural in:fluences affect scores so as to detract

from or completely spoil our predictions.

In the former case we would

dedicate ourselves to an ideal. which is perfectiy legitimate and perhaps

even praiseworthy, but neverthelessra.ther sterile in the presence of'
culturally determined criteria; in the latter

casewe~would dedicate

o.selves to tne I!l1"6d1:ctionof the criteria.

To follow the latter

course, however, 'W'oli1:d'not imply -that we were necessarily prepared also

to defend certa.in

cultur.ally1~1ted criteria

role of sheep and goat sGrters.

that force us into. the

-45Bibliography
L

Alexat:lder, H. B.
~my

A. campa;rison of the ranks of, Amer10an states in

Alpha and in sooial, economic sta-tus..

Sch. ' and Soc., 1922,

l2,.388 -392. ,
A new performance scale of' intelligence

2.

Alexander, W. P.

Brit. J.

3.

Psyohol., ~932, ~, 5a-6~.

Ale:xander, W. P. Alexande:t performneescale .

4.

N.elson and. ~ons:, Ltd., '~' ,1935-46.

Allison, G., and Barnett, A. Freshman psycho10gj,ca.l.examination

Edinburgh:

Thos.

scores as related to sizes of high schools . J. appl. Psychol.,

1940,
5.

~sta.ei,

S!t.,

A.

651-652.
Some 1mplioationsof cultural factors for test con-

struction.

Prooeedings 1942 Invitational; Conference on Testing

Problems.

6.

Princeton, N.. J. :

13-17
Amstasi I A., and li'oley,:
_-vised edition.)
E'~

.,J.

Educational 'Testing Servioe', 1950,

P.; ,Jr .Diffe~ent1e,l pSloholoEg.

(Re-

MacmUlan, 1949.

New. York:

7.

Anderson, J.

The intelligence tests of Yale fresluDen.

Sch. and

8.

~, 1920,:l!, 417-420.
Anderson, J. E. The intelligenoe of a highly selected group.

. and
. . Soc., 1922, 16,723-725.
.. ....

9.

Arli~t,A.

H.

Fur~her

date. on the influence of race and social

status on the IQ. .Psyohol. Bull., 1921, l., 95-96.

10.. A,rsenian, S

t,

BilingualiBDl,'and' mental development

.Contr1b. Eduo.,

N~.

712

New York:

Teaoh. Co11

Columbia Unlv.; Press,

11.

1937.
Areenian, s.

12.

..pantomme directions.. ," Brit. J. Psychol." 1937, 1, 287-301.

Arthur, G. A point scale of :performance tests.. New York: The

The S:ee~n v;i:sue.-f. perc~:ption test (Part .I) with

'. Commonwealth Fund,!,.-,1930 j g, 1933.

13. -Aftllur., G. ,An,expEl~ience in .te-stins Indian school chUdren.
~,

1941, ~, ,188..195.

Ment.

-46:14. Asher, E. J.

The inadequacy of current intelligence tests f~r

testing Kentucky mountain children. J. genet. Psychol., ~935,

46, 4BO-486.
15 . Baldwin, B. T., Fillmore, E. A., and Hadley , L..

Farm children:

An investigation of rural child life in selectedareaa of Iowa.

16.

New York: Appleton, 1930. '

Barr, F. E. A scale for measuring mental ability invocations and
soma of its

applications.UnpubJ.ie~E)4-JD8.sterlethesis;

Stan-

ford University, 191B. Described in Genetic Studies of Genius,

Vol. I, by L. M. Terman and others, Stanford, Calif.: stan-.
170

ford Unlv. Press, 1925.

Bayley, N. Mental growth during the first three years:

A develop-

mental study of sixty-one children by repeated teets.

lB.

Genet.

Psychol. MonoS!'., 1933, .Jl, 1-92 '.

Bayley, N. Acumulative study of environmenta.l correlates of intelligence.

Psychol. BUll., 1935,

~,

702.

19 . Bayley, N. ,and Jones, H. E. Enviromnental correlates of mental

and motor development:

A cumulative study from infancy to

20.

six years. Child Develop., 1937 ,"" 329-341.

Bear, R. M. Factors in the achievement of college freshmen.

21.

and Soc., 1926, 24, 802-804.

Bere, M. Conwarative study of the mental capacity of children of
foreign p!!:rentage.

Sch.

Teach. ColL Contrib. Educ., No .154.

22.

New York: ,Columbia Univ. Press, 1924.

Berry, C. S. The classification of teate of intelligence of ten-

23.

thousand first grade pupils. J. educ. Res., 1922, 6, 185-208.

Bickerseth, M. E" The application of mental tests to'children of

24 .

various ages. Brit. J .Psychol., 1919, 2., 23-73.

Bigelow, M. A The I.Q. in education and eugenic s . ,Eugen. News,
0

1949, ,li,

51~58.

25. Bird, C. Social psychology. New York: Appleton-Century, 1940.

26. .Blackwood,B. M. 'A study of mental testing in relation to a.nthropology. Ment. Meas. Mcnogr., 1927; Ser.4. (Dec.)

27.

Book, W. 'F.

Thein,tellisence of high sohool seniora.

New York:

Macmillan; '1922.

28.

Bradford, E. J. G.

The relation of intelligence to !ll8Xying birth

Brit. J' educ. Psycho!.;, 1937,.

rate in dift'erent c , social grades.

1, 229-246.
29.

Bradway, Ko P.

An experimental study' of factor a associated with.

Stanford-Binet I.Q. changes from the preschool to the junior

highschool. ,J. genet .. ,Psychol.,' 1945,
30.

Bridges, J .. W., and Coler, L. E. ,:The relation of intelligence to

social statue.

31.

., 107 ~128.

Brigham" C. C.

Psycho!. ,Rev., 1917, gi, 1-31.

A study of Americw:.intellis.ence..

Princeton, N. J.:.

,Princeton, Univ. Prese, 1922,.

32.

Brig'h.e.m, C. C. 'Int,elligellce tests of immigrant/groups.

Psycho!.

~, 1930,2]., 158-165. '

33.

Brill, M.

Studies of Jewish and non;.Jewieh intelligence.

J. educ ..

Ps;y:chol." 1936, g],., 331-352.

34.

Brown, A. W.

Chicago non-verbal exa.mina,tion.

New York:'

Psycho-

.logical Corporation, 1936.

35.

Brown, F.

A comparative study of' the intelligence of Jewish and

Scandinavian kindergarten children'.

J. genet. Pey:choL i 1944,

.it 67-92.
36.

Brown, G. L.

1922;
37.

J. educ.Rea.,

Intelligence ae related to nationality.

2.! 324-3270 "

Burdick, E. M.

A, group test of home environment.

Arch. :Peychol.,

1928-1929, 16.
38. ' Burks" B.S..

The relative influence of nature and nurture upon

mental development.

Chap. XOfNature and nurturetPart I:

Twenty-eevent~

Their influence u;pon intellie;ence, pp. 219-316.

Ye~book o:ftp.~J~at;l.on:al

Bloomington, Ill.. :
39.

Society ,f()r. the Study of Eduoation,

Ptlblic School'Publishing

Burks, B. S; . A summary of l:l,teratwe

~>n

COq

,19g8.

the determiners .of the in-

te;l.ligencequotiep.tand,the educational quotient.

Chap. XVI

'of 'Natureand,nurture" Part II:, Their inf'luence.upon achieve-

-48~,

pp. 248,-350. ,Tw~nty-~eventh Y~book of 'the National

Society for the Study of Education, Bloomington, Ill.:

Public

School Publishing 00.,1928.

,

40~

Byrns,R., Intelligence and nationality of Wisconsin school children.

J.
41.

SOO.

Psychol., 1936,1, 455-470.

Byrns, R., and Henmon, V. A. C.

ability.

42.

J. educ. Psycho!., 1936,

Canady, H. G.

The

intellige~ce

Canady, H. G.

g:r,

284-291-

of Negro college students and

~, 388-389-

Am. J. Sociol., 1936,

parental occupation.
43.

Parental occupation and mental

The American caste system and the question of Negro

intelligence. " J. educe Psychol., 1942, 2,2" 161-172.

44.

Carl, G. P.

A new performance test for adults and older children:

,The Carl Hollow Square.

45.

Cattell, R. B.

Intelligence, fertility, and socio-economic factors.

Eusen . Rev., 1937,

46.

Cattell, R. B.
Cattell,R. B.

2,

171-179.

I. J.

A culture-free intelligence test.

Psychol., 1940,
47.

J. Paychol., 1939, 1, 179-199.

2!,

educe

161-179.

A culture-free test.

New York:

Psychological

Corporation, 1944.
48.

Cattell, R. B., Feingold, S. N., and Sarason, S. B.

intelligence test.
test performance.

49.

Chapin, F. S.

II.

A culttn"e-free

Evaluation of cultural influence on

J. educ. Psycho1-, 1941,

, 81-100.

The measurement of Bocial statUe by the use of the

social etatus Bcale.

MinneapoliS:' Univ. Minnesota Press,

1933.
50.

Chapman, J. C., and Sin!s, V.M.

The qualitative measuremeht of

certain aspects of socio-economic status.

J. eduo.Pgychol.,

1935, 16, 380-390.

51.

Chapman, J.C., and Wiggens, D. M.

The relation of family size to

intelligence of'offspring and socio-economicstatu8 of family.

Pede Sem. and J. genet. Psycho1., 1925, }g, 414-421.
52

Chauncey, M. R.

lI'he relation of the home factor to achievement and

intelligence 'test Bcores.

J. educe Res., 1929,' 20,88-90.

-4953 .Coffe~,H. S .. , ,and Wellman, B ,'L,.' The role 61' ClUtural atatUB in
, intelligence changes of preschool children.

54.

1936-37, 2, 191-202.
Coleman, H. A. The relationship of socio-economic'status to the
perf'ormanoeof j1mfor high school students.
I

55.

J .exp . Educ ."

1940, 2;, 61~63'.

The intel1i~ence of, sohoo1 children and paternal

Collins, J. Eo.
occupation.

56.

J .exp. Educ.,

J. educ ReB., 1928, ll,157-169

Cornell" E. L., and Cope ,w.,

w.

A performance ability scale

Yonkers, N. Y.~, World Book Co., 1934.

57.

Croft, A. E.
1940,

58.

,C~f',~.

2,

C.

The ability of relief children.' Am. soeiol. Rev.,

185-192.
Relationship of socioeconomio status to intelligence

and scholarship.
59,.

(Ky. Pers. Bull., No.9, 4)

Psyohol.Abstr.,

1934, 8" No .,,13 02 ; 13,3., ,.

Cuff, N. B. T.b.~ vectors of socio-economic status. ,Peabody J ~ 'Educ.,
,1934, g" 114-117.

60. ,Darsie, Mo' L.

Me:Q,tal capacity of American-born Japanese children.

Compo' Psychol. Monogr ., 1926, 2"No 15, 1-89;,

61.

DaVl3nport, E. L. ,The intelligence quotients of Mexiqan andnon-:

], ,04..306.
,Sch.., and Soc .. , 1932,
.
A compar!sonw;l" group' verbal and pictorial tests of

Mexican
siblings.
.
..
~2. , Davey, C. M.

intelligence.
63~Da.vis,A. Social

Brit. J; Psychol., 1926,

01&:6S

li.

influences upon ,learning.

Cambridge, Ma.ss.:

Harvard Univ. ,Pres 8,1948.

64.

Da'ITis, A.

Socio-economicinfluences on learning., Phi Dalta Ka;ppan,

',}g,. No.5, Jan. 1951, 253-~56

. 65..

Davis, A., and Eravighurst,' R. J.

The measurement of-mental systems. '

fCallinte~lgence be 'measured?.}

Scientific Monthly, ,1948,

.,

301-316.
66.

Dav1s, A."andRess,H. D~, What about I.Q.'s?' J . natl.' Educ. Ass.,}

1949, ..2., ,604-605.

,67~, .Dearbo;rn,::W~ <F,., " Dearborn (}roup Teats.

Test Bureau, 1922.

Minneapolis:, Educattonal

-5068.

Dearborn, W. F.The ,student 1 s"backgromid:in,relation'tQschool .

In Donahue"W.,T.; et al. : The measurement' of student

eucces~.

pp., 191-200" Anri ArbQ;r: Univ

ad,1uatment and achieveme,nt.

Mich. Press, 1949.

69.

Der1"~ck,

S. M.

A comparative study of ,the intelligence of 75 white

and 55 colored college students by the 'Stanford revision of

.J .appl.;., Psychol., 1920, 4." 316~3a9.

,the Binet-Simon Scale.

70 .. Dexter, E. S.' The re:l;.a.tion between o9cupation of parent 'and intel, 11gence of children. , Sch. and Soc'o, '1923,
72.

Dodd, S. C.

International group mental ,tests.

il,

6l2~14.

Princeton, N.J.:

Princeton University Store, Agents, '1926.

72.

Duff, J. F., and Thomson, G. F.

'lb.e social a.nd' geographical distri-

but ion of intelligence in ,Northumberland.

'Brit J. PSYGhol.;

1923, 14, 192-198.

73.

Edwards,A.,M.

Al;pha.betical index of occu;gations, by"industries and

, .soc ial-e conomio . grOUPS, 1237.

Census.
74.

Washington:

Government Printing Office, 1937.

An expe~imental and field, study of the north Georgia

Edwards, A. S.

mountaineers.
75.

Prepared for the Bureau of the

J. soc. Psychol., 1938, 2, 317-333.

Eells, K.,Davis, A., HavighUTst, R. J.', Herrick, V. E., 'and Tyler,

R. W.

,Intelligence and cultural differences' . A stuCly of

cultural learning and problem BolvinB.

'Press,
76.

Feder, D. D.

Fac~orB which affect achi~vementand, i tspre'diction '

107";118. )

(J. Am. AsS ~',Co'll" Regis'tr ., (1940,

Educ. Abstr., 1940,

Feingold, G. A.
groups.

78.

Ferguson,- G~ 0

g,

Un!;,.' Chicago

1951.

at the college level.

77.

Chicago:

2,

!2"

No. 292, ,76.

Intelligence ,of ,first, generation' of '.' 1J:mn1grant

J"educ. Psychol., 1924, ,12:;65-83.

Do

A. :series

of

formboards

J ..'

exP. Psych61., 1920,

47-58.

79., Fitzgerald, J. A. ,and Ludeman, W:. W.' The intelligence of' 'Indian
children.
80.

J. comp. Psycho!', 1926,

Fleming, C. M. ;,Socio-econom!6
educ. Paychol., 1943,

ll,

6) 319-328. '

lev~;r~:nQ.'test

74-82.

perforinance ~ . Brit ... J.

-51..
81.

Frederiksen-, N"

01sQn, . M. , . ~11d Schrader, W'O B.

:Predic~l~n ,.of

first

semester grades at Kenyon .Co11ege, 1948-1949~ _~es. Bull. 50-49,

Princeton, ,:N.

-r.:,' ,;lj:Q.llcational

82. Freder.iksen , N., and

S.cbra~er'.

Testing: Service , 1959.,

W. B Ad;1ustment to ;college.

A study

of' 10;000 veteran and nonveteran students in sixteen American

colleges.
83.

Princeton,

Freeman, F. N. et ale

r;r. J.: Educational-Testing Service, 1951..

The influence of' the environment of' the intel-

lige:Q.ce, 'school. ac~ievement,, and ,.conQ.uct .of' f'OliSter children,.

Chap. IX of' Nature and nurture. Part I:
intellisenoe, ,pp.

1~-2:l7.

NationaJ. Society_ f'or the

Their influence upon

'l'wentY-QEiventh Xearbook of the

~tudy?~ ,Education,

Bloomington, Ill.:

PUblic School Publishing Co., 1928.

84 Fukuda" T.. A survey of the intelligence and environment of' school

children.

85.

Am. J. Psychol., 1925, ~,,124-13~~:

A comparison of the intelligence of' Mexican and ~ed

and~ ;f'u11 blood Indian children.. Psychol ,Rev., 1923, }Q,

Garth, T. R.

388-401.

89...

Garth J , T. R.
New York:

87.

Race ..psychology:

A study of' racial mental d;l:f,ferencEis.

McGraw-Hill:; 1931.

Ga;rth, T. 1'., and Johnson, H. D.

~f

The intelligenoe and achievement

Mexican ohildren in: the United

~tatee ..J.

abn. soc. Psychol.. ,

1934, ~, 222-229.,.

88. Garth, T.R.,

Seraf~i, T.

J., and Dutton, D.

'l'heintelligence of

f'ull blood Indians. . J. appl. Psychol.. 1925, 382{369

89.

Garth, T. Ro, and Smith, 0,. D. The perf'ormance o:f'>fuJ,l-blooded

lndians 9n language and

~n-la.nguage

intelligence teats.

J. abn.

soc. Psychol.,1937,-21, 376-3~1.

90,

Gee, W. ,and Coreon,J. _J.

and.

p~edDlont, ~eas

Monogr.,

91.

Rural depopulation in certain tidewater

of Virginia.

Univ. Va. Inst. Res,. Soc. Sci.

~o. <~,

,19.29.
Geroer:t.ch, J. B., and Stoddard, G. D.

A personnel survey of Iowa

high scbool..senior~ . ,Sah. and.Sooo, 1929, },Q, 515-520.-

92. ',Gesell:, An and Lord, E'O:Eo J\ psycho1Qgical comparison of nursery

.-

sohool children f'rom homes of high and low economic status.

J. genet. Psychol., 1927,

gi,

339-356.

-;293.

Gillis, F. M.

Correlates of intelligeX).ae.:incollege .students.

'. Soh. and Soc., 1931,

94.

2.!!:.,

266-270~

Giat,N.P., and 'Clark, C. D.

Intelligence,asa. selective factor

in:rural-~b!;W, migration.

95.,

Amer. Jo' Sooiol.; 1928, 40:, 284-294.

Glass, L. C. " The relationo' the."inte;J;ligence" of. college students to the.: oooupation of their parents.

E}ljen. News, 1936,

21, 1-2.
96~.

GOodenough,. F. L.
York:

97.

GoOdenough, F. L.

Rae ial differences in the

J. expo Psycbo!., 1926,

Goodenough, F. L.

2.,

int~lligence

99.

26,

of school

388-397.

The relation of the intelligence of preschool

children to the education of their parents.

1927,

New

World Book Co., 1926!,

cbildren.
98.

Mea.surementof'intellisence by drawing.

Sch. and'cSoc.,

54-56.

Goodenough, F. L.. The relation of the 1J;ltelligence of preschool

ch11dre.nto the Qccupations of their fathers.

Am. J. Psychol.,

1928, 40, 284-294.

100.

Gooden~ugh,

F. L., and Anderson, J. E ~

New York:
101.

Appleton-Century~ 1941.

Goodenough, ,F. '1.. ~ and Shapiro,

chi~drenof

tests.
102.

Gordon, H.

Experimental child study.

G'~

The performance of pre Bohool

different social groups on the,

Kuhlman~Einet

J. educe Res., 1928, 18, 356-362.

Mental and scholastic, tests among retarded children:

Anenquiry into the effects of schooling on the various tests.

Educ. Pamphlets! Bd Educ . ! London:
103.

No. 44, 1923.

Grabo, R. P.'The. language handicaps of junior high school pupils

who speak Italian at home

Harvard Graduate Scbool of Educa-

tion, 1929. . (Unpublished Master ~ 8 Thesis.)

104.

Graham, V... T.~

The int~lligence of Jewish a.lJ.d Italian:'children in

the habit clinics of the

Ma.sBachusettsDiviaio~of!{ental

Hygiene. . J. abn .. soc. PSlchol.,

105.

,~925,

22 ,2'7i -277.

Gray ;J.Lo.L.'~ncl':Mdshins1W,;,P". :Apili-tY 'a.nd eduoat'ional:opportunity

in "'r~18t'l~i1'~.to:.;~elita.I""oc!i:n1pa
t:tbn.U
28fll'"'32-9;'j

,Sd(ri~i>fJ"Rev /"', ~:i935';}{:?I;

106.

Ifaggard, E .A._ Influence of- culture backgro'lmd on- test- performProceedings 1949 Invi:ta.tional Conference on Test ips

ance.

Problems.

Princeton, -N,; J .. :

Educational Testing Service,

1950, 18-32.
107. -Haggerty, M. E., and. Nash, H~ B.

The mental capac i ty of children

and parental occupation. - J. educ .. Psychol., 1924,

108.

Haught, B F,;

12,

Mental growth of the southwestern Indian.

559-572.
J. appl.

Psychol., 1934, 18, 137-142.

109.

Haught, B. F.

The relation of intelligence of college freshmen

to parental ocoupation.

Psycho!. Monogr., 1938, :2,Q, No.5,

203-210.
110.

Bavighurst, R. J,;

Child development in relation to comm'lmity

social structure. -Child DeveloPDl., 1946,

Ill.

Havigh\n'st, R. J.

Using the LQ. wisely.

11,

85-89.

N.E.A. Journal, 1951,

~,540-54!.

112-.

lJavighurst ,R. J

0,

and Breese, F. H.

Belationbetween ability and

social status in a midwesternconmnmity:

abilities.
113.

Jo educe Psychol., 1947,

Ha Vighur st, R. J., and Hilkevitch, R. R.

2,

IIL-PriDiary mental
241-247.

The intelligence of

Indian children as measured by a performance Bcale.

.soc. Psycho1., 1944,.
114.

22"

419-433.

llavigh\n'st, R. J.,- and Janke, L. L.

Relations between ability and

social status in a midwestern comm'lmity:

ohildren.
115.

cation.
116.

J. eduo. Psychol., 1944,

Healy, W.,and Fernald; G. M.

J. abn

.22,

I.

Ten year-old

357..:368.

Tests for practical mental classifi-

Psychol. :Monogr ., 1911,

1:2.,

No.2.

Heilman,' J. D. - The relative inf.luence upon educational achievement of some hereditary and environmental factors.

Chap. II

of Nature and nurture, Part II: . Their inf1uence,u.pon .achievemerit ,-1'1'. 35-65.c - Twenty-seventh "Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, Bloomington,Il!.:
So,hoolPub~1Bhing Co.

,1928.

Public

117. . Herr i.ck, ,V . E. What ..1S' .already known ~8bout., 'the relat iQn '. 'Of :-the
. I, Q.to

cultura~

backgrC?:t:md, 'Qllap '. IIof Intelligence and

cultural. differences by Eells ,.K. 'et 'a]:.

Chioago:: 'Univ.

Chicago Press, 1951.

118.

Herskovits, M. _J 0 On the relation between' Negro white mixture

and. standing in itltelligence tests. ,Ped ,Sem. i 1926/ ~,
30-42~.

119.

Hildreth, G.

Ocoupational status and

120.

1934, ll, 153-157

Hill,.no S., The effect of

intelligence~

bil,~lism on

'Person. J.,

themeasure.d intel-

ligence of elementary scbeol children of Italian parentage.

- J .. ex;p. Educ., 1936.,
121.

Hirsch, N. D. M,

2,

A study of natio-racial mental differences.

Genet, ,Psycho1. MonoSI'"

1220

Hunter, W. S"

75-78.
July 1926 .

and Sommermier, E,

The relat ion of the degree of

Indian blood to score on the. Otis .Intelligence. 'Pest. ,J. 'comp , -;

PSlcho1., 1921,
123.

Amer. Schoolmaster, 1921, 14,

JE!oDlieson,.E., and Sandiford, P.

Ontario Indians.

125.

257-275.

Irion, T., and Fisher, F. Co .Testing the intelligence of rural

school children.

124.

g,

The mental capacity of "southern

J. educ ,Psychol., 1928,

old boys and, girls.

Jensen, M. B.
workers.
127.

12.,

536-551.

Janke,. L. L., and Havighurst, R.J.:" Relattons between ability and

Bocial status in a midwestern community.

126.

221-223~

II.

S1xteen-year-

J. educ. Psycho!., )"945,:2., 499-509.

Mental traits of the children of oil industry

J. appl. PSlchol., -;1932,.1,. 633.~e43o

Jones, D. C., and Carr-Saunders; A. 'M.

The 'relation between'-inte'l-

1igence and social-status among orphan, children'; ,Brit, J.

PSlcbe1., 1927,
128,

Jones, H. E. .The.intelllgence of ':P1"~paratory school students.

J. 'educ"

129.

.ll, '34 3-~4,

Jones, H. E.

Pay-chol., 1926,

ll,

376 -383.

Environmental influenoes on mental development 0

Chap, XI of Manual of Child Psychology, ed. Leonard Carmichael.

pp.

582-632.

New York:

John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1946.

-55130.

Jones, H. E., Conrad, H. S., and BlanChard, M. B.

handica.p in mental test performance.
1932,

131.

21

132.

Parental occupation and ohildren' s intelligence

J. apple Psychol., 1933,

Kellogg, C. E., and f\brton, N. W.

New York:

133.

Univ. Ca.li!. Publ. Peychol.,

No.3, 63-99.

Jordon, A. M.
scores.

Environmental

ll,

103.;119.'

Revised A;rmY<Beta Examine.tion'.

Psychological Corporation, 1936.

Kirkpatrick, C.

Intelligence and

immigration~

Ment. meas. Menogr.,

No.2., 1926.
134.

nineberg, O.

An experimental study of speed a.nd other 'fa.ctors in

"racial differenoes."
135.

Klineberg, O.

Aroh. Psychol., 1928, ,!2, No. 93.

A study' of psychological differences between "racial"

a,nd na.tional groups in Europe.

136.

Klineberg, O.
York:

Arch. Psychol.; ,1931, No.' 132.

Negro intelligence and selective migration.

New

Columbia Univ. Press,,1935

KJ..1neberg, O.Race differences.

Kobler, F. J.

New ,York:

Harper, 1935.,

Cultural differentials in -intelligence.

J. soc.,

Psychol., 1943, 18, 279-303.

139.

Kooh, H. L .. , and Simmons, R.

A study of the test performance of

Amerioan, MeXican, and Negro children.

140.

2,2, No5
lawrence, E. M.

Psychol. Monogr., 1926,

An investiga.tion into the relation between intel-

ligence and inheritance.. Br!t. J. Psychol. suppl., 1931.

141.

Leahy, A. M.

Monosr.,
,142.

Leahy, A.M.

olis:

Nature, nurture, and intelligence.

Genet.. Peychol.

1935, 235-308.
The measurement of urban home ,environment. 'Minneap-

Univ. Minn. Press, 1936.

143 . Leiter, R.G.

The Le1iter international perfornRnce scale.

Santa Barbara, Calif.:

Santa :Barbara State College Press,

1940.
144.

Leiter, R. G., and Porteus,S. D.

The Leiter international per-

,formance Bcale. ,Univ. Hag11. Bull. ,Research Publ. No. 13,

1936 ,d:2" No.7.

145.

Line, W.

The growth <:if. visual perception in children.

Brit. J.

Paychol. Monos. SuppL, No. 15, 1931.

146

Livesay, T. M.
B~niors

The relation of test intelligence of high school

in Hawaii to the occupation of their fathers.

J. aPR1.

Ps;y:chol., 1941, .@.2, 369-377.

147.

Livesay, T. M.

The relation of economic status to "intelligence"

and to the rac ial derivation of high school seniors in Hawaii.

Amer . J o Psychol., 1944,
148.

Loades, H. R., and Rich, S. G.

. Zulus.

149.

21,

77-82.

Binet testa on South A1'rican natives,

Pede Sem., 1917, 24, 372-380.

Leevinger, Jo

Intelligence aa related to sooio-ec0nomic

Chap. V of Intelligence:

factor6~

Ita nature and nurture, Part I:

parative and critical exposition, pp. 159-210.

Com-

Thirty-ninth

Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education,

Bloomington, Ill.:
150.

Lorimer,

F.,

Public School Publishtng Co., 1940.

and Osborn, F.

Variations in culture intellectual

development among groups classified by occilpa.tion or social

status.

Chap. VIII of Dynamics of population by F. Lorimer and

F. Osborn, pp. 157-176.'

151.

MacDonald, H.
of Wight.

152.

New-York:

l-hcmillan Co., 1934.

The social distribution of intelligence in the Isle

Brit. J. Psychol., 1925, ~, 123-129.

lIhcmeeken, A. M.

The intelligenoe of a representative grOUp of

Scottish children.

(XV.

Scot. Coun. Res. Educe)

London:

Unive of London Press.

153.

l-hller, J. B.

Mental ability and its relation to physical health

and aooial-economic status.

154.

Psychol. Clin., 1933, 22;101-107.

Marouse, F. L., and Bitterman, M. Eo

Notes on the results of

Army intelligence testing in World War Ie

Science, 1946, 104,

231-232.
155.

l-huldin, W. P.

Selective migration from small towns.

80ciol. Rev., 1940,

156.

McCormick, M. J.

Amer.

2" 748-758.

'I'hemeasurement of home conditions,

Sch. Soc. Work, Soc. Servo Monogr., No.1, 1929.

Nat1. Cath.

-5'7157.

McGehee, W., and Lewis, W. D.

The socio-economic status of .

mentally superior and retarded children and occupational rank

of their parents.

J. genet. Psychol., 1942, 60, 375-.380.

J.58.McMurray, R. N., and Johnson, D. L. BRA

form.
159.

~Mead,

M.

Chicago:

no~-verbal

classification

Science Research Associates, 1947.

Group intelligence tests and linguistic disability among

Italian children.
160.M1n-dook, K.

Sch. and Soc., 1927, ~, 465-468.

A study of race differences in New York City.

and Soc., 1920, 11, 147-150.

161.

Murphy, G., Murphy, L. B., and Newcomb, T. M.

in relation to sooial differences.

Nature and nurture

Chap. II of Experimental

social psyohologY by G. Murphy et al., pp. 27~75.

New York:

Harpers, 1937.
162.

Murray, W. 1. .The 1.Q. and social class in the Negro caste.

Sthwest. J. Anthrop., 1949, ~, 187-201.

163.

National Sooiety for the Study of Eduoa.tion.

Nature and nurture.

Part I:

Their influence upon intelligence.

pp. ix + 465.

Part II:

Their influence uJ?on achievement.

Pp. xv + 397.

Twenty-seventh Yearbook,of the Natl. Soc. for the Study of Educ.

Bloomington, Ill.:
164.

Public School Publishing Co.,

National Sooiety for the Study of Eduoation.

nature .and nurture. Part I:

~.

pp. xviii + 471.

periments.

1928~

Intelligence:

Its

Com;pa.rative and critioal exposi-

Part II:

Original studies and ex-

pp. xviii + 409. Thirty-ninth Yearbook of the

National Society for the Study of Education, Bloomington,

Ill.:

165.

Publio School Publishing Co., 1940.

Neff, W. S.
survey.

166.

Socio-eoonomic status and intelligenoe:

Psyoho].. Bull., 1938, ~, 727-757..

Ne~Bon, C. W.

Testing the influence of rural and urban environment

on ACE intelligence test scores.

1,
167.

a critical

Amer. soeiol. Rev., 1942,

743-751.

Osborn, R. C.

How is intellectual performance related to social

and economic backgrOlmd?

215-228.

J. educ. Psycho!., 1943, ~,

-58168.

Paterson, D. G.

Minnesota Mechanical AbilftyTests; the report of

a research investigation subsidized by theComrilittee on Human

Migrations of the Natl. Research Council and conducted in the
Dept. of Psychology of the Unlv. of Minn.

Minneapolis:

Un1v

of Minn. Press, 1930.

169.

Penrose, L. S.

Pattern ;perception test.

University of london,

Galton
Laboratory, 1947.
';
170.

Penrose, L. F., and Raven, J. C.

A new series of perceptual tests

preliminary commtmication. ' Brit. J. Mad. Psycho1., 1936,

171.

97-i04 .
Peterson, J.

The comparative abilities of white and Negro children.

Comp. Psychol. MonoS! 0' 1922-23,

172.

Peterson, J., and Lanier, L.

of whitea and Negroes.

173

12.,

Phillips, B. A.

1" No.5.

Studies 'in the comparative abilities

Ment. Meas. MonoS!"

1929,

2..

The Binet tests applied to colored children.

Psychol. C1in., 1914 -15,.., 190-196.

174.

Pierce -Jones, J 0, and Tyler, F. To

A comparison of the ACE Psychol.

Exam. and the Cult. Free Test.

Canad. J. PsychoL, 1950,

!t..,

109-114.
175.

Pintner, R.

A menta.l survey of the school population of a. village.

Sch. and Soc., 1917,

176 .. Pintner, R.

Comparison of American and foreign children on 1ntel-

ligence tests.
177.

2, 597-600.

J. educt Psycho!., 1923, 14, 292-295.

Pintner, R 0 Intelligence testing--methods and results.

New York:

H. Holt, New Edition, 1931.

178.

Pintner, R.

Pintner non-language series.

Yonkers, N.Y.:

World

Book Co., 19450

179.

Pintner, R., and Arsenian, S.

The relation of bilin.guB.lism to

verbal intelligence and school adjustment.

1937~38.,

180.

J. educt Res.,

2J:,,255-263.

Pintner, R., Cunningham, B. V., and Durost, W. N.

Cunningham primary test.
1938.

Yonkers, NS.:

Pintner-

World Book Co.,

Keller,R~,

181., Pintner, R., and

Intelligence teste of foreign ch..ildren.

J. ' educ ~ PsY~hoL, 1922,;

182.

Pintner, R., and Paterson,'"D,'" :A scale, of performance

York:

183.

tests~

New,

D. Appleton and Co. ,1.917.:

Aspects ,of socio~economic status which differentiate

Portenier, L.

J. a:Wl~ Psychol., 1938,gg, 261-270.

university students.
184.

il,' 214-222

Preesey, L. W.

T1;le influence of inadequate schooling and poor

J. apple

environment upon results of tests of intelligence.i

.Psychol., 1920, ~,. 91-96.
185.

Pressey, S. L., and Ralston, E.

The relation of the general

intel~'

ligence of school children to the ocoupation of their fathers.

J~ apple Psychol.,19l9, }; 366-373.

186 .

Pres,sey, S., L., and Thomas, J. B.

A study of country: ebUdren in

,a good a.nd poor farming district by means of a group scare of

intelligence.
187.

J .' .awl. PsychoL, 1919,

Pyle, W. H., and Collings, P. E.

Raven, J. C.
Ra~n,

Mental and physical development

Standardization of progressive matrices 1938.

1:2.,

J. 'Psychol., 1941,

189.

283 -286. '

Soh. and Soc., 1918, ; 534 -539 .

of rural children.
188.

2,

J. C.

Brit.

pt. -1,137-150

Progressive matrices.

Dumfries, Scotland:

The

Crichton Royal, 1947.,

190.

Reports

1~9

of the Spearman-Holzinser Unitary Trait Study.

"Psychol.

Dept., Univ. Chicago, 1935.

191.

Roberts, S. O.

Socio-economic status and performance on the ACE

of Negro freshmen college veterans and

North and South.
192.

Rowe.,. E. C.

nonve~erans

from the

Amer. Psychologist, 1948, }, 266, abe.

Five hundred forty-seven white and two hundred sixty-

eight Indian children tested by the Binet-Simon tests.

" Sem., 1914,
193.

Rulon, P. J.

m:.,

454 -468.

Development of a non-verbal classification' test.

FRS Report No. 877.

Section, PR and PEr
194.R.ussell,J~

Ped.

Washington,' D. C.:
~

Personnel Research,

Pers. Bur. -AGO, 1950.

B. _ The measurement of intelligence in a rural area.

Brit.J. Psycho!.,' 1930, 20" 274-295.

-60,195.

Saltzman,S.

The influence of"social and economic background on

Stanford-IHnet perforniance . J'. soc. Paychol. ,1940, 12, 71-81.

196.

Sanchez"G. I.

Scores of Spanish speaking on repeated-tests.

Pede Sem. and J.

197

genet.,Psychri1~,

1932/223-231.

S~nohez, G. I. ' .Bilingualism. and mental measures .

J'. app1.

Psychol., 1934, 18, 765-772.

198.

'Sandiford, P~

Parental occupation and the intelligence of off-

spring.. Sch. and Soc .', 1926, ~, 117-119.

199.

Sanford, G. A.

Selective migration in a rural Alabama. community.

, Amer. sociol. Rev., 1940,

2,

759-766.

200.. Schulman; M.; J. ,and HavighU!'st, R'. J.

Relations between ability

and social statue in a midwestern community..

IV.

Si.ze of

"vocabulary. '.J. educ. Psyohol., 1947, .2., 437-442.

201.

~chwesinger, G. C.

Studies on env~onmental influences as they

inte11~gence.

affect the development of

'and environment:

Chap. IV of ,Heredity

Studies in the genesis of PByohologjl.cal

characteristics by G. C. Schwesinger.

pp. 165-351. New York:

Macmillan Co., 1933.

202.

Seagoe, D. W., and Ko1din, ,T. S.

Jewish and Italian ch11drep..

203

Seltzer, C. C.

Mental capacity ofsixt.h grade

Sch.and Soo., 1925, 22, 564 -568.

Academic succe ss in college of' pUblic and private

school st\ldents:

fJ;'eshman year at Harvard. 'J. Psycho1., 1948,

~, 419-431.

204 . . Seneur, A. C.

Necessity for' use of a non-language mental teet in

group intelltgence tes.ting.

205.

Seymour, H. C.
early.

J. educ. Res., 1934,

g:r,

435-441.

The characteristics of pupils who leave school

UnpUblished doctoral dissertation.

Harvard Graduate

School of Educa.tion, 1940.

206.

Shakow, D., and Kent, G. H.

The Worcester form-board series.

Ped. -Sem. and J. genet. Psycho1., 1925~2,g, 599-611.

207 .. 'Sheldon, W.H . The intelligence of

Mex1c~n

children.Sch. and

Soc., 1924;'12, 469-472.

208.

Shimberg" M.

An investigation into the validity of norms with

special. reference to 'tlI'ban and rural groupe.

1928-9, 16, Sera 104.

A!'ch~'Psyohril.,

-61209.

Shuttleworth, F .. K.,The cumula.tive influence on intelligence of

socio-economic

differ~ntials

over a period often year!J.

operating on the same children

Chap. XIX of Intelligence: '" Its

nature and nurture. Part II:

pp. 275-280.

Original studies and experiments,

Thirty-ninth Yearbook' of the National Society for

the Study of Education, Bloomington, Ill. :

Public School Pub-

lishing Co., 1940.

210.

Slms, V. M.
111.:

211.

'nle measurement of socio-econoIilic status.

Bloomington,

Public School Publishing Company, 1928.

Sirkin, M.

The relation between intelligence, age, and home environ-

'ment of elementaryscbool pupils.

Sch.and Soc., i929, 2Q,

304-308.
212..

Skeels; H.. M., and FUlmore, E. A ~

Mental development of children

from under-privileged .homes.J. genet.Psychol'., 1937, 2Q,

427-439.
213 . Skodak, .101.

Children in foster homes:

a 'study of mental development.

UnlY. Iowa, Studies in Child Welfare.

Vol. 16, No.1:

Iowa

City, 1939.
214.

Smith, M.

University student intelligence and occupation of father.

'. Apter t s02i01 ~ Bev., 1942,

215.

Smith, M, . An urban-rural intellectual gradient.

1943,

216.

I, 7614:-771

gr,

Sociol. soc. Res.,

307-315.

Smith, W. R.Test results reveal advantages of larger schools,

tub!. Moo. Pa., 19~8,

.2,

No.5, 13) Peyohol.. Abe,. ,1938, 12,

'No. 2141, 234.

217.

Sorokin, P.. A., Zimmerman, C. C., and Galp in, C. J.

1ntellig~nce,

Rural-urban

mental health, psychological prooesses,. and pre-'

dominant attitudes. . Chap . -,XX of

A SyStematic sourcebook' Y
ill
.
..
rural sociology. III by P. A. Sorokin et al.~
M1~eap01is:

218, Spearman, C.
219.

'Spencer, L. T.
entrants.

226-351.

Univ. of Minn. Press, 1932.

The Spearman visual perception test.

1933.

College achievement of private and public' school

Sch. and Soc., 1927, 26,. 436-438.

-62,..

220.

Spoerl~.:D.

T.

;The: academic Hand ;,verbakadjustment'o:f':'Gollege 'age'

bilingual students.
221. . Squires, P. C.

64, 139-157.

A universal scale of individual performance tests

. P:r.inceton,. N ~ .. J ~.:
222.

J. genet . Psychol.,. '1944;

Stephenson,W.

Princeton Uniy.ersity F.;r,~B"8., 1926 ,'pp. 198.

Tetrad differences for 'nonverbal subtests.

J. educ.

Psychol.; 1931, g, ,167';'185.

223.

Stephenson, W.

Influence of cultural background on. teat perform-

. ance. .. Proceedings 1949 Invitational Conference on Testipg

Problems . Princeton, N.J.:

Educational Testing Service,

1950; ~3,:"28.
224 .

Environment and the I. Q

l:?toddard, G. D., and Wellman, B. L.

Chap. V of Intelligence:

Its nature and nurture ,Part I,:

parative and.crittcal exposition, pp.405-442.

Com-

Thir.ty..ninth

Yearboo1t:of the National Society for the Study of Education,

Bloomington, Ill.:
225..

Public Sohool Publishing Co.; 1940.

Stoke,. S. M.{)ccupational groups and child development:

a study

of the. mental and physical growth 'of children in relation to

occupational grouping of parents.

Harvard Mcnoar. Educ., No.

8. . Cambridge , Mass.:. Harvard Univ. Press; 1927.

226.

Stoke, S. M., and Lehman, H. C.

and occupational groups.

227.

Stroud, J. B.

Intelligence test scores of social

Sch. and Soc., 1930,

2!,

372-377.

A study of the relation of intelligence test scores

of public schoolohildren to the economic status of their

parents.
228.

Stroud, J. B.

J . genet. Psycho!., 1928, ':2,2,15-111 ..

Predictive value of obtained.intelligencequotients

of sroups favored and unfavored.in sOGio-economic status.

Elem . Soh.. J. ,1942,ll, 97.,.104 ..
229.

TausSig, .F'O W.
York:

230.

Principles of econoinicB, Vol. II.

(2p.d Ed. )

New

Macmillan, 1915.

Terman, E. L .. , McCall, W. A., and Lorge J' I.

mental test.

Bureau of .PUblications "

Non.,.language multi-

~achers

College', Columbia

University, 1942.
231~

Terlm.n,.E. L.,et'aL
Binet-Simon Scale.

The Sta.pford Revislonand Extension of.'the

Baltimore:

Warrick andY6rk, Inc., 1917.

232.

Terman, L. M., 'Baldwin, B.T., Bronson, E., and. others.

Vol. 1.

studies of genius:

thousand gifted children.

,Genetic

Mental and physical traits of a

Stanford, Calif:

Stanford Univ.

Press, 1925.
233~

Terman, L .. M., and'Merrill, M., A.

York:

234.

New

Houghton Mifflin, 1937.

Thomson, G~ n.~
1921,

Measurinslntelligence.

The Northumberland mental tests.:

Brit. J .. ,PsychoL,

g,. '201-222.

235. ' Tilton, J. R.

surv~Y'

of the reliability, validity, and usefUl-

ness of the Cattell Culture-Free Test.

Persona, 1949,

!,

(3-4),

17-19.
236.

Tireman, L. S.
reno

237.

The education of minority groups:

Rev. educ~ Res., 1941, 11, 340-352.

Turnbull, W. :W;,

Influence of cultural backgroundonpredictlve

teat scores,.
ina

bilingual child":

Prooeedings 1949. Invitational Conference on Test ..

Problems~

Princeton,
, N. J,.;

Educe.tional Test ing Service,

1950, 29-34.
238.

U. S.' Bureau of the Census.

1950 Census of Population, Alphabetical

Index of Occupation and Industries.

(ReVised edition.)

Wash-

ington, D. C.; 1950.

239.

Van Alstyne, D.

The environment of

three~.yee.r-old

children:

Faotors related to intelligence and vocabulary tests..

Coll. ColUmbia Contrib. Edue., 1929, No.
240.

W,ang, S. L.

366, pp. 108.

Studies in the history 'of statisticaj. me.thod...

Walker, H.M.
Baltimore:

241.

Teach.

Williams, and Wilkins, 1929.

Demonstration of the' ,language difficulty involved in

comparing racial groups by means of verbal intelligence tests.'

, J. app1.: Psycho1., 1926,12, 102-106.
242.

Warner, W. L., Meeker, M., and Ee11s,K.

Social e,lass in America.

A Manual of Procedur~ for, the Measurement of Social Status.

Chicago:
243.

Scienoe Research Associates, 1949.

Wei~trob, J., and We:i.ntrob, R..

The influence of environment on

'mental ability as shown by the BiIiet-S:Iin6n tests.

PsYchoJ,.., 1912,.

2"

577-583

0"

eduo .',

-64244.

Wellman,B. L,. , The meaning of environment',. ' Chap. II of Intel,ligence:

Its, nature and nurtur.e , .Part!: ,Compara.tive and

Gritical e~pOBition, pp. 21-40.

,Th~rty-ninthYearb~okof the

National Society for the Study of Education, Bloomington, Ill.:

Public School Publishing Co., 1940.
245.

The intelligence of East ~ennessee mOlmtain child-

Wheeler, L. R.

ren. ,J. educ. Psychol., 1932;

246.

Wheeler, L. R.

~,'35l~370.

A comparative study of the 'intelligence of East

Tenness~e, mountain children.

J .educ. Psychol., 1942,

22"

321-334
247.

Williams, J. H.

Whittier Bcale for grading home conditions.

Delinq., 1916,
248.

271-286.

Witty, P. A., and LehlIla.n, H. C.

superiority.

249.

1,

Yerkes, R. (ed.)

J.

Racial differences:

J. soc. Psychol., 1930,

the dogma of

394-419.

Psychological examining in the U. S. Army.

Nat. Acad. ScL, 15.

Washington, D. C.:

Mem.

Govt. Printing Office,

1921.
259.

Yerkes, R., and Anderson, H.

The importance of social status as '

indicated by results of the point scale method ,of measuring

mental capacity.
251.

Yeung,

K.~.

253.

Young, P. C.

137 -150.

J. appl. Psychol., 1921,2, 267-274.

Yoakum, C. S., and Yerkes, R. M.

New York:

.,

The intelligence of Chinese children in San ,Francisco

and vicinity.
252.

J. educ. Psychol., 1915,

Mental tests in the American Army.

Henry Holt, 1920.

Intelligence and suggestibility in Whites: and :Negroes.

J. compo Psychol., 1929,

2,

339-359.