Intelligence testing has had a relatively long and controversial history, beginning with what is generally considered the first formal measure of intelligence, the Binet-Simon Scales (1916). Questions regarding possible cultural bias in these measures arose virtually simultaneously (e.g. Burt, 1921; Stern, 1914). Over the course of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, an abundance of intelligence measures have been developed, with many of them having several revisions, but the issue of test bias remains an important one, both in the professional literature and in the popular press (Reynolds & Lowe, 2009). A current intelligence measure in use, the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II, Elliott, 2007), is a test with growing popularity for assessment of children and youth, not only for its ease of use, but also for its appeal to young children and its nonverbal composite (among other things). Consequently, it is essential that there be empirical evidence supporting the use of the DAS-II as an appropriate measure of cognitive abilities for children of varying backgrounds. The test publishers conducted extensive research with a representative sample during test development in an effort to ensure that the measure met adequate reliability and validity criteria; however, the issue of test bias, particularly regarding cultural or racial/ethnic groups, was not explicitly addressed. This issue was raised and examined with the original DAS by Keith, Quirk, Schartzer, and Elliott (1999), but with the significant changes made from the first edition to the second, there is no guaranty that the evidence from the earlier would necessarily apply to the latter. The current study investigated whether the DAS-II demonstrates systematic construct bias toward children and youth of any of four ethnic groups: Black, Hispanic, Asian, and White. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis using data from the DAS-II standardization sample was used to assess whether criteria for increasingly strict levels of invariance were met across groups. Outcomes of this research contribute to an existing body of literature on test bias, as well as provide evidence regarding cross-group construct validity in the DAS-II. Ultimately the results of this study can be used to evaluate the appropriateness of the DAS-II for clinical use with certain ethnic groups and will help to emphasize further the importance of exploring these issues with all standardized tests. / text

Epstein et al.'s Theory of Overlapping Spheres of Influence focuses on the interaction and communication, or partnerships, among families, schools, and the community to bring the three closer together. The theory works in conjunction with Epstein's typology of parental involvement, which focuses on six types of involvement that are instrumental to a child's development and his/her school and educational success. These serve as the framework for the study and support the construct of parent's involvement in children's schooling. The purpose of the current study was to conduct further validation analyses of an inventory designed to measure the construct of parent involvement in their children's schooling through the investigation of measurement invariance to determine if the measurement properties of the inventory varied by race/ethnicity. The study compared the responses of 126 Hispanic parents/guardians with 116 White/non-Hispanic parents/guardians to investigate if these two groups were interpreting the items on the inventory in the same manner. The inventory was administered to a sample of parents/guardians of children in grades 3 through 5 in a local school district. Findings indicated that the measurement model was misspecified for the White/non-Hispanic group and the Hispanic group and further measurement invariance testing was not conducted. Exploratory factor analyses were conducted in order to investigate which models would best fit the data for both groups. Feedback also was obtained from parents/guardians about the clarity of the inventory, which revealed their confusion with the response scale and the wording of particular items. In addition, they supplied issues or aspects of parent involvement that they found important but missing from the inventory. Results from the psychometric analyses and qualitative feedback indicated that the inventory requires modification and further psychometric investigation. In addition, caution should be exercised for anyone who may be considering utilizing the inventory. Results of the study were interpreted in terms of contributions to the parent involvement literature, as well as recommendations for the improvement of the inventory.