Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity

The Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity, or BITCH-100, is an intelligence test created by Robert Williams in 1972 oriented toward the language, attitudes, and life-styles of African Americans.

Nature of test

The test consisted of a multiple-choice questionnaire in which the examinee was asked to identify the meaning of 100 words as they were then used in black ghettos.[1] Examples of words used included alley apple, black draught, blood, boogie jugie, and boot.[1]

The original sample used in the experiment consisted of 100 white and 100 black St. Louis high school students, aged 16–18 years old – half of them being from low socioeconomic levels and the other half from middle income levels. Williams also had data from two other samples of blacks and whites. These samples included 25 black and 13 white college students from Mississippi and 19 white graduate students from Boston University. Out of the 200 students who participated in the original sample the 100 black students answered 87/100 answers correctly and the whites answered 51/100 questions correctly. In the other samples the results were similar with the black students' scores being drastically different from those of the whites.[2][3]

Interpretation

The results of the test showed that the black group performed much better than the white group. White students performed more poorly on this test than blacks, suggesting that there are important dissimilarities in the cultural backgrounds of blacks and whites. The results of these tests and examination of the BITCH-100 confirmed Robert Williams' belief that his intelligence test dealt with content material that was familiar to blacks. However, there exists a restriction of range in the current form of the test thereby limiting its usefulness as an instrument used for selection.[3][2][4] Some argue that these findings indicate that test bias plays a role in producing the gaps in IQ test scores.[5]

Both of these tests demonstrate how cultural content on intelligence tests may lead to culturally biased score results. Still, these criticisms of cultural content may not apply to "culture free" tests of intelligence. The BITCH-100 and the Chitling test both have explicit cultural assumptions, while normal standardized tests are only hypothesized to have implicit bias. The fact that a test can have bias does not necessarily prove that a specific test does have bias. However, even on cultural free tests, test bias may play a role since, due to their cultural backgrounds, some test takers do not have the familiarity with the language and culture of the psychological and educational tests that is implicitly assumed in the assessment procedure.[6]

gollark: ... whyyyyyy
gollark: So apparently, because this is insane, eSIMs are physical SIM cards in the device which can be remotely changed?!
gollark: Wait, that's kind of different.
gollark: There are eSIM thingies.
gollark: Yes, you need SIM cards to connect to the phone network, or virtual ones, the whole system is insane, aaaaa.

See also

References
  1. Lewis R. Aiken (31 May 2004). Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 268. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5.
  2. Matarazzo, J. D., & Wiens, A. N. (1977). Black intelligence test of cultural homogeneity and wechsler adult intelligence scale scores of black and white police applicants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(1), 57-63.
  3. Williams, Robert L (September 1972). The BITCH-100: A Culture-Specific Test. American Psychological Association Annual Convention. Honolulu, Hawaii.
  4. Racial Differences on a Black Intelligence Test Journal of Negro Education, 43, 4, 429-436, F 74
  5. IQ Tests and the Black Culture McNiel, Nathaniel D.
  6. Assessment in Multicultural Groups: The Role of Acculturation van de Vijver, Fons J.R.; Phalet, Karen from the Special Issue on Advances in Testing Methodology from an International Perspective Applied Psychology. 53(2):215-236, April 2004.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.