Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Applied Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nenty, H. J.
Right arrow Articles by Dinero, T. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

A Cross-Cultural Analysis of the Fairness of the Cattell Culture Fair Intelligence Test Using the Rasch Model

H. Johnson Nenty

Cleveland Public Schools

Thomas E. Dinero

Kent State University

Logistic models can be used to estimate item pa rameters of a unifactor test that are free of the ex aminee groups used. The Rasch model was used to identify items in the Cattell Culture Fair Intelli gence Test that did not conform to this model for a group of Nigerian high school students and for a group of American students, groups believed to be different with respect to race, culture, and type of schooling. For both groups a factor analysis yielded a single factor accounting for 90% of the test's vari ance. Although all items conformed to the Rasch model for both groups, 13 of the 46 items had sig nificant between score group fit in either the Amer ican or the Nigerian sample or both. These were re moved from further analyses. Bias was defined as a difference in the estimation of item difficulties. There were six items biased in "favor" of the American group and five in "favor" of the Nigerian group; the remaining 22 items were not identified as biased. The American group appeared to per form better on classification of geometric forms, while the Nigerians did better on progressive ma trices. It was suggested that the replicability of these findings be tested, especially across other types of stimuli.

Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 5, No. 3, 355-368 (1981)
DOI: 10.1177/014662168100500309


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?