Comparing the performance of native north americans and predominantly white military recruits on verbal and nonverbal measures of cognitive ability

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 239-248

  Vanderpool, Michael ^a   Catano, Victor M ^a  

^a SAINT MARY S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 49749137879     PISSN: 0965075X     EISSN: 14682389     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00430.x     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Albert, J.A. (1998) Cognitive Measures: Comparison of the Canadian Forces Aptitude Test (CFAT), Raven's progressive matrices, and the Wonderlic Personnel Test (Technical Note 98-5). Ottawa, ON : Personnel Research Team.
2. Beiser, M. Gotowiec, A. (2000) Accounting for Native/Non-Native Differences in IQ Scores. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 237 252.
3. Bobko, P.B., Roth, P.L. Buster, M.A. (2005) Work Sample Selection Tests and Expected Reduction in Adverse Impact: A cautionary note. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13, 1 10.
4. Bussiere, M.T. (1997) The Detection of Bias Due to Gender, Visible Minority Group Membership, and Aboriginal Status on the Canadian Forces Aptitude Test (CFAT). Ottawa, ON : Personnel Research Team.
5. Campbell, S.K. Catano, V.M. (2004) Using Measures of Specific Abilities to Predict Training Performance in Canadian Forces Operator Occupations. Military Psychology, 16, 183 201.
6. Carpenter, P.A., Just, M.A. Shell, P. (1990) What One Intelligence Test Measures: A theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices test. Psychological Review, 98, 404 431.
7. Donohue, J.J. (2005) Validation of 2004 CFAT Percentile Norms. Technical Note 2005-01, Director Human Resources Research and Evaluation, National Defence Headquarters, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
8. Environics Research Group Limited. (1997) A Survey of Visible Minorities, Aboriginals and Women to Assess Their Level of Interest in Joining the Canadian Forces. Ottawa, ON : Department of National Defence.
9. Ewins, J.E.M. (1997) Canadian Forces Diversity Survey: A population analysis (Technical Note 1-97). Ottawa, ON : Canadian Forces Personnel Applied Research Unit.
10. Gottfredson, L. (2002) Where and Why g Matters: Not a mystery. Human Performance, 15, 25 46.
11. Hidalgo, M.D. Lopez-Pina, J.A. (2004) Differential Item Functioning Detection and Effect Size: A comparison between logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 903 915.
12. Holland, P.W. Thayer, D.T. (1988) Differential Item Performance and the Mantel-Haenszel Procedure. In : Warner, H. Braun, H.I. (eds), Test validity. Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 129 145.
13. Jenson, A.R. (1980) Bias in mental testing. New York : Free Press.
14. Johnston, P.J. Catano, V.M. (2002) Psychomotor Abilities Tests as Predictors of Training Performance. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science., 34, 75 83.
15. Lynn, R. Vanhanen, T. (2006) Race Differences in Intelligence: An evolutionary analysis. Augusta, GA : Washington Summit Books.
16. MacAvoy, J., Orr, S. Sidles, C. (1993) The Raven Matrices and Navajo Children: Normative characteristics and culture fair application to issues of intelligence, giftedness, and academic proficiency. Journal of American Indian Education, 33, 32 43.
17. Morris, S.B. Lobsenz, R. (2000) Significance Tests and Confidence Intervals for the Adverse Impact Ratio. Personnel Psychology, 53, 89 111.
18. Peck, D.F. (1970) The Conversion of Progressive Matrices and Mill Hill Vocabulary Raw Scores Into Deviation IQ's. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26, 67 70.
19. Raven, J. (2000) The Raven's Progressive Matrices: Change and stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 1 48.
20. Raven, J., Raven, J.C. Court, J.H. (1998a) Raven's Manual. Oxford : Oxford Psychologists Press.
21. Raven, J., Raven, J.C. Court, J.H. (1998b) Raven's Manual. Oxford : Oxford Psychologists Press.
22. Raven, J., Raven, J.C. Court, J.H. (2000) Raven's Manual. Oxford : Oxford Psychologists Press.
23. Robie, C., Mueller, L.M. Campion, J.E. (2001) Effects of a Motivational Inducement on the Psychometric Properties of a Cognitive Ability Test. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 2, 177 189.
24. Roth, P.L., Bevier, C., Bobko, P., Switzer III., F.S. Tyler, P. (2001) Ethnic Group Differences in Cognitive Ability in Employment and Educational Settings: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 54, 297 330.
25. Sackett, P.R., Schmitt, N., Kabin, M.B. Ellingson, J.E. (2001) High-Stakes Testing in Employment, Credentialing, and Higher Education: Prospects in a post-affirmative-action world. American Psychologist, 56, 302 318.
26. Sackett, P.R. Yang, H. (2000) Correction for Range Restriction: An expanded typology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 112 118.
27. Salgado, J.F. Anderson, N. (2002) Cognitive and GMA Testing in the European Community: Issues and evidence. Human Performance, 15, 75 96.
28. Schmidt, F.L. (2002) The Role of General Cognitive Ability and Job Performance: Why there cannot be a debate. Human Performance, 15, 187 210.
29. Schmidt, F.L., Oh, I.-S. Le, H. (2006) Increasing the Accuracy of Corrections for Range Restriction: Implications for selection procedure validities and other research results. Personnel Psychology, 59, 281 305.
30. Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O.S. Drasgow, F. (2004) Examining the Effects of Differential Item (Functioning and Differential) Test Functioning on Selection Decisions: When are statistically significant effects practically important? Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 497 508.
31. Stark, S., Chernyshenko, S., Chuah, D., Lee, W. Wadlington, P. (2001) [on-line] Detection of differential item/test functioning (DIF/DTF) using IRT.
32. Sternberg, R.J. (2004) Culture and Intelligence. American Psychologist, 59, 325 328.
33. Stough, C., Nettlebeck, T. Cooper, C. (1993) Raven's Advance Progressive Matrices and Increases in Intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 1, 103 104.
34. Viswesvaran, C. Ones, D.Z. (2002) Agreements and Disagreements on the Role of General Mental Ability (GMA) in Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology. Human Performance, 15, 211 231.
35. Wonderlic, E.F. (1997) Wonderlic Personnel Test User's Manual. Libertyville, IL : Wonderlic Personnel Test Inc.
36. Zumbo, B.D. Thomas, D.R. (1997) A measure of effect size for a model-based approach for studying DIF. Working paper of the Edgeworth Laboratory for Quantitative Behavioral Science, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, Canada.