The effects of stereotype threat on standardized mathematics test performance and cognitive processing

Harvard Educational Review

Volumn 79, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 448-472

  Arbuthnot, Keena ^a  

^a LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350627734     PISSN: 00178055     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.17763/haer.79.3.43n8521j3rk54221     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Ambady, N., Shih, M., Kim, A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2001). Stereotype susceptibility in children: Effects of identity activation on quantitative performance. Psychological Bulletin, 12(5), 385-390. (Pubitemid 33653548)
2. American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
3. Brown, R. P., & Josephs, R. A. (1999). A burden of proof : Stereotype relevance and gender differences in math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 246-257.
4. Dorans, N.J., & Holland, P. W. (1993). DIF detection and description: Mantel-Haenszel and Standardization. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 3-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). A protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1997). Predicting black and white differential item functioning in verbal analogy performance. Intelligence, 24(2), 417-444. (Pubitemid 127340319)
7. Gallagher, A. M., & De Lisi, R. (1994). Gender differences in scholastic aptitude tests: Mathematics problem solving among high-ability students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 204-211.
8. Gallagher, A. M., De Lisi, R., Holst, P., McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A., Morely, M., & Cahalan, C. (2000). Gender differences in advanced mathematical problem-solving. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 75(3), 165-188.
9. Hamilton, L. S., Nussbaum, E. M., & Snow, R. E. (1997). Interview procedures for validating science assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 10(2), 181-200.
10. Haydel, A. M. (2002, April). Using cognitive analyses to describe motivation in terms of cognitive, metacognitive, and affective engagement in different science assessment context. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, New Orleans, LA.
11. Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
12. Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2003). Do high-achieving female students underperform in private? The implications of threatening environments on intellectual processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 796-805. (Pubitemid 37514217)
13. Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (Eds.). (1998). The black-white test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
14. Kupermintz, H., Ennis, M. M., Hamilton, L. S., Talbert.J. E., & Snow, R. E. (1995). Enhancing the validity and usefulness of large-scale assessments: I. NELS: 88 mathematics achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 525-554.
15. Kupermintz, H., Le, V., & Snow, R. E. (1999). Construct validation evidence of mathematics achievement: Evidence from interview procedures (Tech Report No 493). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
16. Loveless, P. (2000). Does self-stereotyping affect performance on the ACT assessment? (ACT Research Tech Report No 2000-2006 [5020000E]). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing.
17. Magone, M., Cai, J., Silver, E. A., & Wang, N. (1994). Validating the cognitive complexity and content quality of a mathematics performance assessment. Internationaljournal of Educational Research, 21(3), 317-340. (Pubitemid 24794835)
18. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 13-103). New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan.
19. National Cen ter for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2005, October). The nation's report card: Mathematics 2005. Retrieved February 10, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/ pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006453
20. Nettles, M. T. (2000, October 27). The status and consequences of admissions test performance for the nation's demographically diverse population of aspiring students. Paper presented at the Fulbright Educational Experts Seminar, Ann Arbor, MI.
21. O'Brien, L. T., & Crandall, C. S. (2003). Stereotype threat and arousal: Effects on women's math performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 782-789.
22. Quinn, D. M., & Spencer, S. J. (2001). The interference of stereotype threat with women's generation of mathematical problem-solving strategies. Journal of Social Issues, 57(1), 55-71.
23. Ryan, K. E. (1991). The performance of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure across samples and matching criteria. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28(4), 325-337.
24. Ryan, K. E., Arbuthnot, K., & Lin, C. (2002, April). Investigating test item response processes for gender and ethnic groups on high stakes standards-based assessments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, New Orleans, LA.
25. Scheuneman, J. D., & Gerritz, K. (1990). Using differential item functioning procedures to explore sources of item difficulty and group performance characteristics. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(2), 109-131.
26. Scheuneman, J. D., & Grima, A. (1997). Characteristics of quantitative word items associated with differential performance for female and black examinees. Applied Measurement, 10(4), 299-319. (Pubitemid 127473390)
27. Schmitt, A. P., & Dorans, N.J. (1990). Differential item functioning for minority examinees on the SAT. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(1), 67-81.
28. Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55(1), 4-28.
29. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air. American Psychologist, 2(6), 613-629.
30. Steele, C. M., &Aronson,J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797-811.
31. Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 379-440.
32. Stout, W., & Roussos, L. (1995). SIBTEST manual Urbana: University of Illinois Department of Statistics, Statistical Laboratory for Educational and Psychological Measurement.
33. Strieker, L. J., & Emmerich, W. (1999). Possible determinants of differential item functioning: Familiarity, interest, and emotional reaction. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 347-366.