Partial scalar invariance and observed differences across gender in a reasoning test battery

  1. Paula Elosua 1
  2. Josu Mujika 2
  1. 1 Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
    info

    Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea

    Lejona, España

    ROR https://ror.org/000xsnr85

  2. 2 Unversidad del País Vasco
Journal:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915

Year of publication: 2015

Volume: 27

Issue: 3

Pages: 296-302

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

More publications in: Psicothema

Abstract

Background: The substantive basis of the Reasoning Test Battery (BPR) is the theory of the hierarchical organization of cognitive abilities and therefore, it combines a general cognitive factor and specific factors associated with abstract, numerical, verbal, practical, spatial and mechanical reasoning. The battery has three forms, covering an age range from 9 to 22 years. Method: The present study analyzes the internal structure of the Basque version of the battery using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Factorial invariance studies across gender were performed and partial differences observed were analyzed in a sample of 1,923 students. Result: The results concluded: (a) the presence of one general reasoning factor in each of the forms, (b) partial scalar invariance across gender affecting mechanical reasoning and numerical reasoning, (c) no differences in the general reasoning factor, and (d) negligible observed differences in partial scales. Conclusions: Tests for measurement invariance indicate differences in factor intercepts, cautioning that comparisons of observed g scores across gender are not appropriate.

Bibliographic References

  • Almeida, L.S., Guisande, M.A., Primi, R., & Lemos, G. (2008). Contribuciones del factor general y de los factores específicos en la relación entre inteligencia y rendimiento escolar [Contributions of the general factor and specific factors in the relation between intelligence and scholar achievement]. European Journal of Education and Psychology, 1, 5-16.
  • Almeida, L.S., & Lemos, G. (2006). Batería de provas de raciocínio: manual técnico [Reasoning test batttery: Technical manual]. Braga: Universidade do Minho, Centro de Investigação em Psicologia.
  • Amaral, A.O., Almeida, L.S., & Morais, M.J. (2014). Raciocínio e rendimento escolar: Estudo com adolescentes moçambicanos da 8ª à 10.ª clase [Reasoning and scholar achivement in a sample of mozambican adolescents]. In Atas do 1º Congresso “Cognição, Aprendizagem & Rendimento”. Braga: Universidad de Minho: Centro de Investigación en Educación.
  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association & National Council on Measurement in Education (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington: AERA.
  • Baumgartl, V.O., & Primi, R. (2006). Evidences on the validity of the Battery of Reasoning Tests (BPR-5) for employment selection. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 19, 246-251.
  • Carroll, J.B. (2003). The higher-stratum structure of cognitive abilities: Current evidence supports g and about 10 brad factors. In H. Nyborg (Ed.), The Scientific Study of GeneralIintelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen (pp. 5-21). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
  • Cattell, R.B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 1-22.
  • Cattell, R.B. (1971). Intelligence: Its structure, growth and action. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Cheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R.B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
  • Colom, R., Quiroga, M.A., & Juan-Espinosa, M. (1999). Are cognitive sex differences disappearing? Evidence from Spanish populations. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 1189-1195.
  • Dolan, C.V., Colom, R., Abad, F.J., Wicherts, J.M., Hessen, D.J., & van de Skyusm S. (2006). Multi-group covariance and mean structure modeling of the relationship between the WAIS-III common factors and sex and educational attainment in Spain. Intelligence, 34, 193-210.
  • Elosua, P., & Iliescu, D. (2012). Tests in Europe. Where we are and where we should to go. International Journal of Testing, 12, 157-175.
  • Elosua, P., & Mujika, J. (in press). Internal structure and gender invariance of the Spanish version of the reasoning test battery. Spanish Journal of Psychology.
  • Elosua, P., & Muñiz, J. (2010). Exploring the factorial structure of the Self-Concept: A sequential approach using CFA, MIMIC and MACS models, across gender and two languages. European Psychologist, 15, 58-67.
  • Finch, W.H., & French, B.F. (2012). The impact of factor noninvariance on observed composite score variances. International Journal of Research and Reviews in Applied Sciences, 10, 1-13.
  • Fryer, R.G., & Levitt, S.D. (2010). An empirical analysis of the gender gap in Mathematics. American Economic Journal-Applied Economics, 2, 210-240.
  • Geiser, C., Lehmann, W., & Eid, M. (2008). A note on sex differences in mental rotation in different age groups. Intelligence, 36, 556-563.
  • Guilford, J.P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Halpern, D. (1997). Sex differences in intelligence: Implications for education. American Psychologist, 52, 1091-1102.
  • Halpern, D.F., Benbow, C., Geary, D.C., Gur, R.C., Hyde, J.S., & Gernsbacher, M.A. (2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8, 1-51.
  • Horn, J., & Noll, J. (1997). Human cognitive capabilities: Gf-Gc theory. In D.P. Flagnagan, J.L. Genshaft & P.L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
  • Hyde, J.S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581-592.
  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
  • Irwing, P. (2012). Sex differences in g: An analysis of the US standardization sample of the WAIS-III. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 126-131.
  • Jackson, D.N., & Rushton, J.P. (2006). Males have greater g: Sex differences in general mental ability from 100,000 17- to 18-year-olds on the Scholastic Assessment Test. Intelligence, 34, 479-486.
  • Johnson, W., & Bouchard, T. (2007). Sex differences in mental abilities: g masks the dimensions on which they lie. Intelligence, 35, 23-39.
  • Johnson, W., Carothers, A., & Deary, I.J. (2008). Sex differences in variability in general intelligence: A new look at the old question. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 518-531.
  • Kenny, D.A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D.B. (in press). The performance of RMSEA in Models with Small Degrees of Freedom. Sociological Methods Research.
  • Lemos, G., Abad, F.J., Almeida, LS., & Colom, R. (2013). Sex differences on g and non-g intellectual performance reveal potential sources of STEM discrepancies. Intelligence, 41, 11-18.
  • Linn, M.C., & Petersen, A.C. (1985). Emergence and characterisation of gender differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479-1498.
  • Lohman, D.F., & Lakin, J. (2009). Consistencies in sex differences on the cognitive abilities test across countries, grades, test forms, and cohorts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 389-407.
  • Lynn, R. (2002). Sex differences on the Progressive Matrices among 15-16 year olds: Some data from South Africa. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 669-673.
  • Lynn, R., Raine, T.A., Venables, P.H., Mednick, S.A., & Irwing, P. (2005). Sex differences on the WISC-R in Mauritius. Intelligence, 3, 527-533.
  • McGrew, K.S. (2005). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities: Past, present, and future. In D.P. Flanagan & P.L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 136-182). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  • Muñiz, J., Elosua, P., & Hambleton, R.K. (2013). Directrices para la traducción y adaptación de los tests: segunda edición [International Test Commission guidelines for test translation and adaptation. Second edition]. Psicothema, 25, 149-155.
  • Muñiz, J., & Fernández-Hermida, J.R. (2010). La opinión de los psicólogos españoles sobre el uso de los tests [The opinion of Spanish psychologists on use of the tests]. Papeles del Psicólogo, 31, 108-121.
  • Primi, R., & Almeida, L.S. (2000). Estudo de validação da Bateria de provas de raciocínio (BPR-5) [Validation of the Reasoning test battery (BPR-5)]. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 16, 165-173.
  • Primi, R., Couto, G., Almeida, L.S., Guisande, M.A., & Miguel, F.K. (2012). Intelligence, age and schooling: Data from the Battery of Reasoning Tests (BRT-5). Psicologia: Refl exão e Crítica, 25, 79-88.
  • Primi, R., Rocha da Silva, M.C., Rodrigues, P., Muniz, M., & Almeida, L.S. (2013). The use of the bi-factor model to test the uni-dimensionality of a battery of reasoning tests. Psicothema, 25, 115-122.
  • Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1-36.
  • Schneider, W.J., & McGrew, K.S. (2012). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll Model of Intelligence. In D.P. Flanagan & P.L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (3rd ed., pp. 99-144). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  • Spelke, E.S. (2005). Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? A critical review. American Psychologist, 60, 950-958.
  • Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. New York: Macmillan.
  • Thurstone, L.L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Van der Sluis, S., Posthuma, D., Dolan, C.V., de Geus, E.J.C., Colom, R., & Boomsma, D.I. (2006). Sex differences on the Dutch WAIS-III. Intelligence, 34, 273-289.
  • Vernon, E. (1961). The Structure of Human Abilities. London: Methuen.
  • Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M.P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250-270.
Data source: Dialnet