CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
ETHNIC AND SOCIOCULTURAL DIFFERENCES
OF
PERFO&~NCE
ON THE BLACK
INTELLIGENCE TEST OF CULTURAL
HOMOGENEITY
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Educational Psychology
by
Gwendolyn L. Walker
June, 1976
The thesis of Gwendolyn L. Walker is
approved:
California State University, Northridge
May, 1976
ii
@·1976
Gwendolyn L. Walker
all rights reserved
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Acknowledge~ent
is expressed to Dr. Augusto Britton
for his consideration, suggestions, encouragement and the
many hours of guidance he gave me throughout the study.
Grateful appreciation is also expressed to Dr. Marie
Rivers for her counsel, support and guidance in helping me
to develop this study.
I would like to thank all of the participants who
participated in the study and all of the people who made
it possible for me to complete this work.
Finally, I would like to express my sincere
appreciation and thanks to my mother and father and
especially to my husband, Dr. Jerone S. Walker, our
children, Majela and Tashini, and friends for their
patience, moral and spiritual support during the critical
moments of completing this study.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .
iv
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES .
. vii
ABSTRACT .
viii
.
.
. • • . •
Chapter
I.
INTRODUCTION
1
Statement of the Problem
Definitions
II.
4
........
4
Limitations of the Study
5
Hypotheses
6
.
. .
• . .
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
8
A Historical View of the Black and White
World
8
Theoretical Concept of Intelligence .
10
Intelligence Testing of Minorities
11
Intelligence, Socioeconomic Status and
Test Scores o! Blacks and Whites .
13
An Intellectual View and Functioning
Level of Black Ghetto-Reared Children
17
Comparative Studies of Testing on
Blacks and Whites
.
.
• .
. . •
19
22
Summary •
v
--····--~--
··---------------
------~
----------- --------- -- -
-------
- ---
Chapter
III.
METHOD.
.
•
Subject~
IV.
v.
24
• .
24
Instruments.
25
Procedure . . .
26
Data Analysis.
27
RESULTS
28
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .
Review and Discussion . . .
36
Limitations.
37
Summary . . .
37
Suggestions for Further Research
39
REFERENCES.
41
APPENDICES . .
45
APPENDIX A:
Questionnaire for the Black
Intelligence Test of Cultural
Homogeneity .
APPENDIX B:
46
Raw Scores and Demographic
Information for the Different Groups.
vi
.
47
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURE
Table
Page
1.
Analysis of Variance by Ethnicity and SES
on the BITCH~Test . . . . . . . . • • . • . • 29
2.
Means and Standard Deviations by Ethnicity
and SES Levels . . . . • • • . . . • • • . . 31
3.
Combined Means and Standard Deviations by
Ethnicity and SES Levels . . • . . . . . • • 32
4.
Mean Comparison of Groups by Ethnicity
and SES and SES and Ethnicity Combined
• . . 34
Figure
1.
Mean Scores on the BITCH-Test for Low and
Middle Income Blacks and Whites
. . • 30
vii
ABSTRACT
ETHNIC AND SOCIOCULTURAL DIFFERENCES
OF PERFORMANCE ON THE BLACK
INTELLIGENCE TEST OF CULTURAL
HOMOGENEITY
by
Gwendolyn L. Walker
Master of Arts in Educational Psychology
Department of Educational Psychology
June, 1976
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether
there were significant differences in performance on the
Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity among
Black and White subjects from low and middle income
socioeconomic levels.
In January, 1976, sixty Black subjects, low and
middle income, and sixty White subjects, low and middle
income were given the Black Intelligence Test of Cultural
Homogeneity (BITCH-Test).
Ethnic and racial
categorization was determined by a questionnaire.
Data were analyzed using a two way analysis of
viii
variance, mean comparisons using t-tests to test the
hypothesis.
Results supported the hypothesis that black
performance (regardless of socioeconomic status) would be
superior to that of whites.
The results did not support
the hypothesis that low income subjects would perform
better than middle income subjects, the opposite was
foun~
Among the conclusions from this study are;
1.
There is a significant relationship between
ethnicity and performance on the Black
Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity
(BITCH) ;
2.
Performance on the BITCH is influenced by SES
factors; and
3.
Motivation in test taking is greater among
middle income subjects than low income subjects.
Recommendations for future research were suggested.
ix
Chapter One
INTRODUCTION
There have been several studies of testing performed
during the past half century comparing Black and White
Intelligence.
Researchers have shown that test
performances of blacks to be inferior to those of whites
on a variety of instruments.
Some investigators (Shuey,
1966; Jensen, 1969; Herrnstein, 1971) have argued that the
differences in intelligence between blacks and whites are
heredity and genetically determined.
Several articles, reports and books have been
published on the innate intellectual difference among the
two groups (Blacks and Whites).
The Coleman Report (1966)
failed to show that schools make a difference in basic
academic achievement and test results did not relate
differences in the physical facilities, curricula and
teacher characteristics.
Investigators (Boone, 1974i Gay and Abrahams, 1973)
claimed that intelligence tests that.have been
standardized on predominantly white populations were
biased to minorities.
There are several factors which
affect the scores of blacks; environment, cultural
characteristics and black learning styles.
Boone (1974)
published his study on racial differences on a Black
Intelligence Test (BIT) using socioeconomic status (SES)
as a factor among blacks and whites.
-1-
There was no
2
significant interaction between the scores of the Black
group with those·of the White group on the Black
Intelligence Test when both groups were dichotomized into
high and low categories.
Halpern,
(1974) claimed that several researchers
pointed out almost two decades ago the inequity in ability
testing.
Later, the Davis-Eells Games Test was developed,
(an instrument reportedly less culturally biased than
conventional paper and pencil tests) which showed
essentially that Black children perform better on the
Davis-Eels Games Test than on culturally unfair tests.
Among the major reviewers were those like Pintner
(1931) who interpreted Blacks' low scores as a sign of
racial inferiority, and others who maintained that these
differences were due to the influence of nurture and
selection.
In the nature-versus-nurture, debate, Peterson
(1923) reconciled both positions by recognizing that
environment as well as race accounted for the differences
between the scores of Blacks and Whites.
Canady (1946)
concerned himself with the problem that tests of mental
abilities (standardized on a White population) could not
be an adequate measure to compare Blacks and Whites.
Klineberg (1935) found that various factors such as:
amount of schooling, motivation, socioeconomic status and
language affected the scores of Black children.
His
conclusions were that there was no genetic basis for
racial differences in intelligence.
3
Black psychologists question the validity of
individual and group tests because when they are used,
many times the test is not representative of minorities
and is standardized from a White middle class sample.
Canady (1946) felt that available instruments did not
adequately assess the intelligence of Blacks, he stated:
It is significant that, almost without exception,
all measurements of Negro have been made with
tests standardized chiefly on Northern urban
Whites. Such a procedure is unjustifiable for
tests are applicable only to individuals similar
in their experiential background to the group
upon whom they were standardized •..
The unsuitability of attempting to evaluate the
intelligence produced by one culture in terms
of another and the decided advantage to the
group in which the tests arose is obvious ...
If, therefore, it can be demonstrated that the
experiential background of the American Negro
child differs appreciably from that of Whites
upon whom the tests were standardized the test
results may not be used as a measure of the
relative innate ability of the two groups
(p. 411-412) .
Stone (1974, p. 46) states in his recent article,
"Let's Abolish IQ Tests" that,
Ever since World War I when IQ tests were first
administered on a nationwide basis, standardized
tests have been manipulated to confine Blacks to
an educational and occupational plantation.
There is further need to investigate the relationship
between intelligence and socioeconomic status and its
influence or effects on culturally content tests.
Boone
(1974); Williams (1974); Peskay and Masters (1972) have
shown significant differences in performance on
intelligence tests when comparison was made based on
4
ethnicity and socioeconomic status.
Statement of the Problem
Many Black children in this country have been
characterized as being inferior to whites because of a
comparative intellectual dysfunctioning.
This has often
been referred to as "culturally determined retardation".
Too frequently, the black child is sterotyped because he
suffers from a range of different types of dysfunctions
such as:
miseducation, under-education and social and
economically deprivation.
These dysfunctions are readily
identifiable and give rise to appropriate concern for the
relationship between socioeconomic status and intelligence
of blacks and whits.
The purpose of this study was to further research
the question of differences between black and white
performance scores on the Black Intelligence Test of
Cultural Homogeneity (BITCH) and the effect of socioeconomic status (SES) of the two groups on said test.
Definitions
BITCH - Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity
A test developed by Robert L. Williams.
Test items
are selected from black culture for representation ability
tests to validate black responses to white-oriented tests.
The author, Williams, developed the BITCH to be used for
testing both black and white population.
The test contains
100 vocabulary items pertaining to the black culture.
5
SES - Social Economic Status
In this study socioeconomic status is based on the
subject's total annual family income.
Both lower and
middle income is specified by Appendix A Participant
Eligibility Form.
Low Income
For the pusposes of this study, low income is defined
as any subject's total family annual income is less than
$8,300.
Statistics taken from Upward Bound (1973) and
Cal State University Northridge (1975) E.O.P. Appendix A
Participant Eligibility Form.
Middle Income
Middle income has been defined as any subject making
more than $8,300 annually (Bureau of the Census, Current
Population Reports; Series p-60, No. 94.)
Limitations of the Study
There have been many comparative studies measuring
the intelligence of both blacks and whites but there is
still little known about the influence of socioeconomic
status on black performance on the BITCH.
It was decided
to limit the sample to low and middle income blacks and
whites from the Northeast Valley area (Pacoima, San
Fernando and Sylmar) .
The sample consisted of two groups
of subjects, designated Group A, Blacks (low and middle
SES) and Group B, Whites (low and middle SES).
Due to limited time, the many possible variables
6
that could have been measured (occupation, education and
geographical location), it was necessary to use income
and ethnicity as a basis of control to determine differences on the BITCH.
A questionnaire was developed to
determine age, education, low and middle income status
.and ethnicity.
Hypotheses
The purpose of this study was concerned with whether
there were significant differences in performance on the
Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity among
black and white subjects from low and middle income SES.
The following hypotheses were tested:
Ho :
1
Blacks regardless of socioeconomic status (SES)
would perform significantly better on the Black
Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity than
white (BITCH).
Ho :
2
Blacks of low
socioeconom~c
status (SES) would
perform significantly better on the BITCH than
middle income blacks.
Ho :
3
Whites of low socioeconomic status (SES) would
perform significantly better on the BITCH than
middle income whites.
Summary
Other studies have compared the performance of blacks
and whites using stanqardized made tests on white middle
class culture and values.
These studies have consistently
7
shown that white subjects perform better then blacks on
both verbal and 'performance items.
Although there have been many studies on black and
white comparisons in relationship to intelligence and
SES, there has been a limited amount of research done on
measuring low and middle income black performance on a
black culturally content test.
This study was unique in the sense that it compared
blacks and whites on a test that reflects black cultural
verbal items and it comparatively assessed the performance
of blacks on the basis of socioeconomic categorization.
CHAPTER TWO
Review of the Literature
This chapter will provide a review of the literature
and research pertaining to a historical aspect of
intelligence and socioeconomic status and their effect
upon blacks and whites.
Several sections will be
explained respectively as follows:
of the black and white world;
of intelligence;
(1) A historical view
(2) Theoretical concepts
(3) Intelligence testing of minorities;
(4) Intelligence and socioeconomic status;
(5) An
intellectual and functioning level of ghetto-reared black
children; and (6) comparative studies of testing on
blacks and wihtes.
A summary is also included.
A Historical View of the Black and White World
Through three and one-half centuries of colonial and
national history, the United States has developed
traditions and prejudices which created two distinct
cultures, black and white.
From the time that Africans
were brought as indentured servants to the United States
in 1619, the enormous task 'of rationalizing and justifying
the forced labor of people on the basis of racial
differences still persistin maintaining unjust,
inequality and discrimination.
Some Americans conceded the importance of education ..
but blacks tended to favor some
particula~
type of
education that would be in keeping with their lowly
-8-
9
station in life (Clark & Parsons,l966).
Neither the Civil
War nor the era of reconstruction made significant steps
toward the permanent elimination of racial barriers.
The
most vigorous efforts were made for a new assault on
racism was kindled by some of the New Deal Policies of
Franklin D. Roosevelt (Clark & Parsons, 1966).
As members
of the economically disadvantaged group, blacks benefited
from relief and recovery legislation.
The most powerful direct force in the maintenance of
the two worlds of race has been perpetuated by government,
states, cities, communities, and educational institutions.
Due to a history of inequality, researchers, Jensen and
Shockley, cited in Kennedy (1973), that blacks are
innately inferior to whites.
Teachers and school
administrators also perpetuate the system of racial
separation.
The standardized tests that are administered
in this county are based on the many·assumed factors
attributing to the inequality of blacks.
The reading of
American history over the past two centuries impresses
one with the fact that ambivalence on the crucial
question of equality has persisted almost from the
beginning and that there is still a cultural and racial
barrier between the two groups, blacks and whites (based
on false assumptions of inherent black intellectual and
personal inferiority).
10
Theoretical Concept of Intelligence
One of the significant advances made by psychology
during this era is the operational definition of
intelligence through social acceptance of intelligence
testing (Kennedy, 1973).
There have been many contro-
versies concerning the following:
heritability of
intelligence; inequality of poor children, racial
differences in IQ and language deficit.
"Theoretically,
intelligence is conceived as the ability to profit from
experience, the more intelligent a person is, the better
adjusted he is, the more successful he is .... (Kennedy,
1973 p. 3).
Operationally, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence
Scale defines intelligence as "a numerical value called an
IQ (Intelligent Quotient),
(Kennedy, 1973 p. 3)".
Intelligence tests were used to make a distinction
between children with poor academic potential and
children with academic potential.
The intelligence test was developed in the first
decade of this century at a time when America was going
through some social changes, particularly arrangements
for the upbringing of children.
Common schooling, child
welfare, and the concept of the "whole child" was taken
into consideration.
Samuda (1975) cited that E. L. Thorndike and his
associates reviewed the theory of intelligence testing,
and recognized important factors such as what is being
11
measured by the tests and what was meant by measurement.
White (1975)" cited David Wechsler, author of several
intelligence tests for adults and children, commented on
the attempts over decades to define intelligence and
concluded:
"Psychology now seems to find itself in the
paradoxical position of devising and avocating tests for
measuring intelligence and then disclaiming responsibility
for them by asserting that "nobody knows what the word
really means (White, 1975 p. 8).
"Social Darwinism" remains strong even today, forming
the notion that the social arena must be seen as a
competitive arena where there are the strong and the weak
and that there are better men and worse men - people
sought to abolish favoritism based on inheritance or land.
Social Darwinism offered the importance of bestness was
intelligence (White, 1975 p. 8) ". ,
Robinson (1974) states that too often, blacks have
been socially classified as being innately inferior to
whites, mentally retarded and lowly motivated because of
white standardized intelligence tests.
Intelligence has
many diversities in nature and there is a need to redefine
or seek universal standards of IQ.
Intelligence Testing of Minorities
Blacks have been victims of testing for many years in
this country.
Even today, testing is one of the most
embittered controversial issues researched.
Mass
12
objective-type testing during World War I was a means of
dividing blacks and whites level of intellectual function.
Williams (1974 p. 34) explains that "it is unfair to
assume that Black and White cultures are so similar that
the same tests can be properly used for psychological
testing and placement".
Many ability tests misplace and
improperly classify black children.
If a black child
scores low on a test that is biased, he is automatically
placed in a low category, therefore, the black child is
expected to perform low.
This is known as the
"Rosenthal Effect" or the self-fulfilling prophecy
(Rosenthal, 1968).
"The self-fulfilling prophecy refers
to the extent to which a teacher's expectancy influences
her responses as well as the direction of the behavior she
expects to occur".
As a result of this expectancy, the
black child starts to perform
low~y
and believe that he
cannot function at any higher capacity.
Many experiences
like this, enhance the stereotype of blacks being inferior
to whites.
But in a recent study of Williams (1974) both
blacks and whites were administered the BITCH-100.
The
results showed that blacks scored higher than whites on a
test that was specific to their culture.
The Association of Black Psychologists fully
supports those parents who have chosen to defend
their rights by refusing to allow their children
and themselves to be subjected to achievement,
intelligence, aptitude and performance tests which
have been used to A. Label black people as
uneducable. B. Place black children in "special"
classes and schools. C. Perpetuate inferior
13
education in blacks. D. Assign black children
to educational tracts. E. Deny black students
higher educational opportunities. F. Destroy
positive growth and development of black
people. (p.310)
Williams (1974) pointed out that the debate concerning
standardized tests and the interpretations placed on the
results or scores of minorities has intensified and many
people are aware that tests can be used as a tool to
damage black children.
Halpern {1974) claims since
schools are integrated with minorities and whites, there
is further need to research and develop a tool to measure
many cultures academic success.
Intelligence, Socioeconomic Status and Test Scores
of Blacks and Whites
This study is solely concerned with socioeconomic
status and it's effects on intelligence.
There have been
many studies made showing the effects of SES and it's
effects on academic achievement, IQ,-~nd racial
differences.
The Freidhoff {1955) study of relationships
among various measures of SES, social class identification,
intelligence and school achievement found a significant
partial correlation between achievement and SES with
intelligence was held constant.
in Kennedy,
However, Shockley cited
(1973) that on large-scale studies with
historical validity that had been cited by other
researchers, that even when socioeconomic variables are
controlled, blacks tend to score significantly lower than
whites on intelligence and achievement tests.
Stone,
14
(1975) concludes that the chances for a black child
scoring in the same range as a white child is one in 23,
based upon the median family income of the two groups.
Twenty three times more white families than black
families earn $15,000.00 or more, according to the U. S.
Census,
(8,222,956 white families compared to 352,403
black families).
Middleman (1972) showed evidence in his study on the
impact of non-verbal communication of affect on children
from two different racial and SES backgrounds.
This
study measured the responses of children from two
different socioeconomic groups in terms of three tasks
that emphasized,
drawing task),
(1) accuracy following directions (a
(2) accuracy in hearing and extracting
information from a verbal context, and (3) spontaneously
produced words in a simple essay.
The difference in
productivity in response to affect (positive or negative)
as opposed to no affect (neutral)was greater among
children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds than
among those .from the lower-middle socioeconomic backgrounds.
With regard to affect-style, it was found that
there were no significant effects on any of the tasks for
the white middle and lower-middle socioeconomic subjects.
It was also found that for Task 2 and 3 there were no
significant affect-style effects for the black lower
socioeconomic subjects.
15
A recent study by Masters_and Peskay (1972) showed a
relationship between low and upper middle class black
and white children.
"In a counterbalanced design, 7-9
year old black and white children from lower and upper
SES homes received success, failure and neutral feedback
concerning their performance on various trials at a game",
which involved the effects of race, socioeconomic status,
and success or failure upon contingent and non-contingent
self-reinforcement in children.
"Low SES, success
feedback and non-contingent dispensation encouraged
increased levels of self-gratification.
There was a
tendency for black children to show greater selfgratification than white children and a child's race
entered into several interactiqns with other variables
determining self-gratification ..... White children showed
increased non-contingent self-gratification following
both success and failure, but black children showed only
self-congratulations".
(Masters and Peskay, 1972, Vol. 7,
p. 139).
In this earlier study Masters and Peskay (1972)
explained that black children in our society would show a
greater level of self-gratification than white children,
not because of any genetic differences but because of
individual social comparisons in this country.
Samuda (1975) presented data which demonstrated that:
(1) track placement was correlated with income levels of
16
student's homes;
(2) those schools within the low income
bracket or below enrolled over 90 percent black students;
(3) the predominantly white schools served a community
which averaged an income of $10,374 and had all but 8
percent of students enrolled in honors or regular tracks;
and, (4) black students were over represented in special
academic tracks for ttie "retarded".
Thus the court was
compelled to recognize the separation of students along
socioeconomic and ethnic lines.
Judge Wright was
concerned with the issues and consequences and stated:
••• Because the tests are primarily standardized
on and are relevant to a white middle-class
group of students, they produce inaccurate and
misleading test scores when given to lower class
and Negro students. As a result, rather than
being classified according to ability to learn,
these students are in reality being classified
according to their socioeconomic or racial
status or-more precisely-according to
environmental and psychological factors which
have nothing to do with ability.
{Samuda, 1975, p. 113)
Given the obvious disadvantage and distress of
ghetto-reared black children, and given their very welldocumented lower academic
functioning~
one can see why
many researchers have related these children's academic
and intellectual difficulties to their alleged inferiority.
In public schools today, the problem of academic
retardation is massive.
This condition is evidenced by
the expansion of EMR (educatable mentally retarded) classes
and the vast range of poverty-type pre-school programs for
blacks.
Many academic problems are tragtc and many of the
17
schools that are predominantly black are poor (Meers,
1973~
An Intellectual View and Functioning Level of GhettoReared Black Children
The black child performs "poorly" in the typical
classroom due to a number of reasons, among which is the
lack of understanding and validation of black culture and
the black cognitive learning style.
For many years the
myth existed that black children are poor in their
expression of verbal skills, or could not master the
standard dialect.
The black language style does differ
from the white language but this does not mean that
blacks are inferior.
However, there are researchers
(Jensen, 1973, Meers, 1973) that attribute variations
between races as being related to genetic factors and
denies that child rearing in the black ghetto
substantiates a difference in intelligence.
Williams (1970) related that the black experience
produces unique verbal skills found mainly in the typical
black community and that these skills are not validated or
accepted in the middle-ctass oriented classroom.
Examples
of this are illustrated by many black children "playing
the dozens" which they do very well.
"Playing the dozens"
refers to a kind of insult in reference to someone's
parents.
The black children that master the dozen are
said to be poor readers, non-creative and did not enjoy
school.
But, on the other hand, these children could
phrase their dozens in "iambic pentameters" with ease and
18
creativeness which there is no_question about the black
child regarding lack of verbal skills.
Black
children are not inarticulate.
They are not
allowed to bring their cognitive learning and expressive
styles into the schools.
Blacks are forced to leave
their culture and verbal skills on the outside.
Therefore, it is not surprising that black children are
turned off by the "Dick and Jane" cognitive style of
learning.
Silverstein and Krate (1975) states that
"peer groups in the classroom influence many children but
the conflictual nature of street peer-group relations
was not filtered out by the walls of the school", therefore, the black learning style prevails because of the
black child ghetto experiences.
Jones,
(1972) stated that the most pervasive and
significant of the influences on education for the black
ghetto child now appears to be due to the changes which
black people are making themselves, and which they are
introducing to society, for instance, the black perspective of awareness.
Today,
~ore
and more black people
believe that there is no real desire or sincere program
for basic social change.
There is, then, very little
question but that the discovery of the need to compensate
for the disadvantage of the black ghetto child is largely
in response to the black nationalism sweeping the nation.
While some white racists continue to say that all black
19
people know is how to burn, loot, snipe, kill and be a
"tool of the communists", some other whites are turning to
compensatory educational programs "designed to eliminate
the causes of deprivation" before "the rages of poverty
become irreversibl-e".
Yet, there is still another problem of ghetto-reared
children regarding education.
The burderi of social
changed is placed upon the shoulders of the black
children.
For it is the black ghetto child that must
change because society conditions still perpetuate
disadvantages.
The problem of educating black ghetto
children is being brought to the attention of many
people at this time, partially as a cover up for the poor
quality of education which has long been the fate of low
income and minority group children.
Comparative Studies of Testing on Blacks and Whites
There have been many psychological assessments of
black and white Americans.
The primary concern has been
with the assessment of black intelligence and school
achievement compared to that of whites.
Generalizations
stemming from studies of black-white differences in
intelligence and achievement are well known.
Compared to
whites, blacks generally score significantly lower on
standardized measures.
This has given many researchers
the reason to believe-that the assessment of intelligence
has genetic basis.
20
The greatest controversy is that of the hereditarian
and the environmentalist argument about the nature of
black-white differences in intelligence and achieveL.c:.:,t
and about the origin and consequences of the differences.
The hereditarians (Jensen, 1969, Herrnstein, 1971) states
that "heritability indicates, in the form of a number
varying between 0 and 1.0, how large a role the genetic
make-up (genotype) plays in the total amount of the
variation of a trait (for example, skin color and
intelligence) of a particular group of people at a
particular time_ (Jensen, 1969) .
The environmentalist
refutes the concept of genetically determined intelligence
and maintains that the differences of intellectual
performances is due to income, social classes, culture and
experiences.
Williams, (1974) developed the.BITCH Test as a counterbalance to whites.
In his study, he administered the
BITCH Test (verbal test based on black culture experiences)
to both blacks and whites and found that blacks scored
significantly higher on the BITCH Test than whites.
Boone (1974) suggested that the Black Intelligence Test
may not be a valid measure of intelligence but it does
demonstrate the broad cultural dichotomy found between
black and white groups.
Williams, ( 1970) mentioned the use of so-called
culture-fair tests, specifically the Davis-Eells Games
21
Test and stated that black children do better on this
test than on "culturally unfair tests", but this t.est is
neither reliable nor as valid for predicting academic
work.
Nolls (1960} also mentioned in his study of the
relation of scores on the Davis-Eells Games Test to
socioeconomic status.
The scores on this test were less
influenced by socioeconomic and cultural differences than
scores on the conventional group intelligence test.
The Scholastic Aptitude Test, Iowa Basic Skills,
Graduate Record Exam and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale
for Children and the Stanford-Binet are a few of the
standardized instruments that are used in measuring
intelligence and ability in schools, and colleges for many
years.
Many studies using these tests show blacks
scoring significantly lower than whites.
In a large
scale study using the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale
on black elementary school children in the southeast
United States (Kennedy, Van De Riet and White, 1963),
did point up the scope of the problem of intellectual
deficit in a large ethnic group (Kennedy, 1973}.
This
normative study also measured academic achievement,
finding a 20 percent deficit in this population such that,
at the end of elementary school, the children were a full
grade behind in reading, arithmetic and spelling.
Jones (1972), cited several major studies showing
blacks excelling whites on the following tests:
Blacks
22
from two states excelling whites from several states on
Armed Forces Tests ...•. A black school leading the state in
reading.
Rural Ontario blacks matching their white
counterparts in IQ ..... and a study showing average and
above average IQ scores in a five-year longitudinal
·experiment with black slum children.
Although many researchers conducted investigations
about the nature of black-white intellectual differences,
there is still a great concern by others to research
intelligence as it relates to SES among both groups,
blacks and whites.
Summary
Studies using predominately black and white samples
have made many efforts to ascertain whether there is a
relationship between black and white intelligence and
whether or not socioeconomic status has an effect on both
subjects.
The current descriptive term for the child of
low socioeconomic background, usually of black or other
minority status, is said to be culturally disadvantaged
or culturally deprived.
Some researchers nave found no
relationship between race, intelligence and socioeconomic
status while others reported that there is a confounded
relationship between race, intelligence and socioeconomic
status.
Many researchers. have labeled blacks as being
inferior to whites due to innate characteristics.
There
23
have been numerous factors supporting the theory, which
many people still perpetuate, that blacks are slow
learners.
There are other studies showing that
intelligence is not hereditary but remains with the
environment and cultural experiences as determiners of
the differences between blacks and whites.
The debate concerning standardized tests and other
culturally biased tests has contributed to the differences
between blacks and whites.
Whites tend to score
significantly higher on middle class standardized tests
than blacks.
To counterbalance this type of biased
testing, other researchers developed culturally-content
tests representative of black and minority groups, but
there is still a further need for the development of a
culture fair test or new techniques for teaching
different cultures.
Although research has investigated the many comparative differences between blacks and whites in the areas
of race, SES, intelligence and etc., more research is
needed to show the relationship between low and middle
income blacks and blacks and whites of similar
backgrounds.
CHAPTER THREE
Method
This study was concerned with the following
variables:
The independent
socioeconomic status.
variable~
were ethnicity and
The dependent variable was an
index of verbal performance on the Black Intelligence Test
of Cultural Homogeneity.
Subjects
Subjects were carefully selected according to income
levels to differentiate between low and middle income
blacks and whites.
There were a total of one hundred and
twenty sampled subjects divided into four categories
according to race (blacks and whites) and socioeconomic
status (low and middle income) .
Subjects were selected
from predominately integrated communities in the Northeast Valley area (Pacoima, San Fernando and Sylmar) .
Each
subject volunteered to participate in taking the BITCH.
Group A was divided into two categories, low income
blacks and middle income blacks with a sample of thirty
subjects in each category.
The same procedure was used
for Group B, using whites as the subjects.
The following method was used in choosing the sample.
Both black and white subjects were choosen for the middle
income categories by specified income brackets which
ranged from $8,300 to $15,550.
The lower income blacks
and whites were sampled from lower housing facilities,
-24-
25
many of which were welfare recepients and those who fell
in the income bracket below $8,300.
The test was administered to individuals, small
groups (comprising of three to six subjects and large
groups) comprised of ten to twenty subjects.
Individual
testing and small group testing was specificially given to
the lower income subjects because some were not familiar
with taking tests and using the instrument given.
The
larger groups were specifically given to middle income
subjects because of their familiarity with the instrument.
Instructions were carefully given to all subjects to
reduce error in taking the BITCH.
Instruments
The Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity
(BITCH-100) was used in this study to compare the
performance of low and middle income blacks and whites.
This test was developed by Robert L. Williams in 1972 as
a culture specific test to provide an evaluation of
black people experiences.
The BITCH is fairly simple and
requires less than one-half hour to administer.
The test
consists of one hundred multiple choice items with four
possible answers to choose from in A, B, C, and D
categories.
The test may be given to individual subjects
and groups.
The test is primarily used with adolescents,
adults and any group of people that can read English.
In the manual, Williams (1972) states that "the
26
examiner should make sure that subjects understand that
the terms are taken from the black experience and are in
the context of black people's use of the terms".
A standard answer sheet was used to mark in the
correct answers from the test.
The answer sheet was
listed in number sequence from one to one-hundred and
sixty with multiple choice boxes labeled as follows:
(A B C D).
A questionnaire was developed to acquire information
about each subject and to categorize subjects in the
following areas:
ethnic origin, income levels, sex, age,
and educational levels.
Procedure
The testing process took two weeks to administer.
The last week in January, 1976 and the first two weeks in
February, 1976, was the alloted time used for
administering the BITCH (Black Intelligence Test of
Cultural Homogeneity).
Testing was done at Los Angeles
Mission College, San Fernando, North Pacoima Park, Pacoima
and in individual homes.
The following procedure was followed in
administering the test:
Each subject was told what the
test measured the black culture experiences.
The subjects
'
were given directions on how to take the test.
The
questionnaires were attached to each answer sheet to
identity income levels before starting the test.
The
21
subjects were told that there was no time limit on taking
the test, therefore, a lot of tension and anxiety was
elimated.
The subjects were tested both morning and afternoon.
The same testing procedure was repeated for the remaining
subjects that was administered the BITCH.
Some of the subjects were tested individually at
their homes because it was not
convenient
for them to
participate in group testing.
After the completion of the test, all data were
collected to be computed and analyzed.
Data Analysis
The statistics used in this study were as follows:
Means, Standard deviation, and two·-way analysis of
variance, and mean comparisons using t-test to test the
hypotheses.
The significance level was set at .05.
CHAPTER FOUR
Results
The purpose of this study was to investigate
whether there were significant differences in performance
on the Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity
among black and white
socioeconomic levels.
subjec~s
from low and middle income
The following hypotheses were
tested at the .05 level of significance:
Ho 1 :
Blacks, regardless of SES status would perform
significantly better on the BITCH than whites.
Blacks of low SES would perform significantly
better on the BITCH than middle income blacks.
Whites of low SES would perform significantly
better on the BITCH than middle income whites.
Statistical computations were performed at the
computer center at California State University, Northridge.
The design for this study called for a two factor
analysis of variance to show separate effects of
ethnicity and socioecon6mic status and determine the
interaction effects among the groups.
One hundred and twenty subjects were tested in four
separate groups.
An analysis of variances was used to
determine the relationship between the four groups.
Groups were also compared using means and standard
deviations to determine more specific significant
differences.
-28-
29
Table 1 presents the analysis of variance which
shows a significant difference between ethnic groups
(blacks and whites).
TABLE I
Analysis of Variance by Ethnicity
and SES on the BITCH Test
Source
df
MS
F
Ethnicity (A)
1
~8750.00
69.2871
*
SES (B)
1
3224.03
11.9138
*
Ethnicity X SES (AXB)
1
780.30
2.8835
Within Group
116
270.61
Total
119
23024.94
*Significance beyond
.01
30
The obtained F ratio for the main effect of ethnicity
of 69.2871 is significant beyond the critical F ratio of
6.8700 at the .01 level of significance.
The obtained F
ratio of 11.9138 for the SES factor exceeded the critical
F of 6.8700 beyond the .01 level of significance.
However,
the interactive effect of ethnicity and SES did not
exceed the critical F of 6.8700 and as indicated in
Table I was not statistically significant.
The mean scores on the BITCH as indicated in
Figure 1 shows an ordinal interaction effect, is a nonsignificant interaction between ethnicity and SES for
low and middle income blacks and whites.
Blacks------
.
Whites
90
80
70
·- ... - --------- ---.
(/)
t:r:l
(/)
to
H
8
(')
60
t-1
::r:
<:
(/)
r-'
0
CD
CD
(ll
50
0
~
CD
(ll
40
30
(I.Dw)
(Middle)
Figure 1 - Mean Scores on the BITCH Test for Low and
Middle Income Blacks and Whites.
31
The means and standard deviations by ethnicity and
SES levels as indicated in Table 2 show that the mean
scores on the BITCH test for blacks was significantly
greater than those scores for whites.
TABLE 2
Means and Standard Deviations
by Ethnicity and SES Levels
(N
=
30 per group)
Socioeconomic Levels
Low
Middle
Means
S. D.
Means
S. D.
Blacks
74.6
14.64
79.87
17.38
Whites
44.5
19.13
59.97
14.14
32
- ----
~------~~
~----~-
----------
-~---·---------·-··--
---·--···---------.--.
A closer look at Table 3 shows the combined means and
standard deviations by ethnicity and SES levels for both
blacks and whites were significantly different, that is,
blacks scores on the Bitch test were greater than whites.
TABLE 3
Combined Means and Standard Deviations
by Ethnicity and SES Levels
Blacks
Whites
Combined
Means
S. D.
Means
s.
D.
Means
S. D.
Low
74.6
14.64
44.5
19.13
59.55
22.71
~.Uddle
79.87
17.38
59.97 14.14
69.92
18.64
Combined
77.23
16.15
52.23 18.41
As indicated in Table 4, lower income blacks scores
are not significantly different from middle income blacks.
However, low income blacks performed significantly better
than whites regardless of SES levels.
Middle income
blacks performed significantly better than low and
middle income whites un the BITCH test.
Low income
whites scores were significantly lower than both blacks
33
and whites regardless of SES levels.
Low income ·blacks and whites combined, scored lower
on the BITCH test than middle income blacks and whites
combined.
In summary, the significant findings were:
Hypothesis 1 was confirmed, supporting that blacks
in general scored significantly higher on the BITCH than
whites.
The combined mean scores for blacks was 77.23
and the combined white mean scores was 52.23.
The null
hypothesis was rejected.
Hypothesis 2 was not supported by the data, low
income blacks did not perform significantly better on the
BITCH than middle income blacks.
income blacks was 79.87.
The mean scores for low
The null hypothesis was not
rejected.
Hypothesis 3 was rejected, suggesting that low
income whites scores in the BITCH was significantly
lower than scores of middle income whites.
Low income
white mean score was 44.5 and middle income white mean
score was 59.97.
The null hypothesis was rejected.
'
TABLE 4
Mean
'<I'
Compariso~
of Groups by
M
Ethnicity and SES and SES and Ethnicity Combined
x
14.64
DF
79.86
"':."'
.-tO!><
......
"''"""'
1
S. D.
74.6
.>t.-t
u I
Groups
17.38
...
,;
1
""'
"'"'"'
.,...
~
"';:;::"'
2
....."'"'"'
"'
"''"""'
3
19.13 .
14.13
18.41
59.55
22.70
DF
69.92
'"""'"'
7
8
3.30**
1.20
(58)
(88)
(58)
(88)
(88)
(8R)
7.50**
4.87**
6.84**
4.31**
(58)
(58)
(88)
(88)
8.51**
(88)
.5.00**
(88)
7.91**
(118)
4.92**
3.56**
1.85
3.12**
(58)
(88)
(B8)
6.05**
(88)
2.02*
(88)
-.09
2.57*
(88)
(88)
1.93
5.23**
(118)
(118)
-. 72
2
3
4
5
6
(118)
-2.44*
(88)
-2.30*
(118)
2.73**
7
(ll8)
18.64
DF
6
5.79**
•
DF
5
'"""'
i~
"CI"'"'
"':;:!"'[:;
(SS)
DF
52.23
4
:b
:."'"'
0
"'
3.94**
DF
59.96
fiiJ[:;
•r-1 "t::tll
6.84"*
DF
44.5
• I
so"'
..-.:.en
• 75
(88)
16.15
...
.......
..,.,
..,OJ;:;:l
"'"'"'"'
fi...:~[:;
LJI
1.28
DF
77.23
.;
• I
~;:;::
8
*significant beyond
7•05
**Significant beyond
~.01
.
CHAPTER FIVE
Summary and Conclusions
Review and Discussion
This study was concerned primarily with whether
there were significant differences in performance on the
Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity among
black and white subjects from low and middle socioeconomic
levels.
Data from this study supported a statistically
significant relationship between ethnicity, SES and
performance on the BITCH.
As previously reported, Williams (1974) tested both
blacks and whites using the same instrument (BITCH) that
was used in this study and found that blacks scored
significantly higher on the BITCH than whites.
The
present study found the same results that blacks scored
significantly higher on the BITCH than whites at the
.05 level using a two way factor analysis of variance.
Recent studies by Middleman (197'2) and Masters and
Peskay (1972) indicated that there were significant
relationships among various measures of SES, race, social
class identification, intelligence and school achievement.
Although the present study found a significant
relationship between SES and performance on the BITCH,
there were significant differences in low and middle
income whites.
35
36
This study found that middle income blacks scored
greater than lower income blacks and middle income whites
scored significantly better than lower income whites on
the BITCH.
But, low income black scores were not
significantly different from middle income blacks and low
income white scores were significantly different from the
middle income white scores.
·Whereas, Boone (1974)
published his study on racial differences on a Black
Intelligent Test using SES as a factor among blacks and
whites found that the scores of the black group with
those of the white group on the BIT (Black Intelligent
Test) was dichotomized into high and low status groups and
the revealing affect due to race was not significant.
These conclusions of previous studies and the
present study might suggest that when comparing low and
middle income blacks and whites, certain facts should be
considered.
One factor which might be considered by
the findings of this study could be that the reason
middle income blacks scored better on the BITCH was
because they were once exposed to black expressions or
dialect and that they are aware of both black and white
cultures.
Middle income whites scores reflected their
knowledge, exposure and awareness of black expressions
through the media, literature and social contact.
Through these shared experiences, middle income whites
feel less threatened by blacks, therefore they identify
37
with the life-style of blacks.
The findings showing that there are less similarities
among low income blacks and whites could indicate that
low income blacks and whites have less social contact
with each other due to the fact that they compete for
similar jobs, housing, and social and economical
opportunities; as a consequence, the low income white
person could see the black expression as a threat to
their desire for social and economical mobility.
The
increased performance of middle income subjects over low
income subjects could indicate that middle income
subjects are more motivated to perform well on tests than
low income subjects.
Limitations
After completing the interpretation and results of
this study, certain limitations should be considered:
1.
Many items on the BITCH were not representative
of blacks in certain geographical locations,
that is black expressions vary due to culture
experiences.
2.
Even though the BITCH was explained explicitly,
some lower income subjects had difficulty
reading and interpreting the test on paper.
If
the test had been given verbally, the scores
may have improved.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether
38
there were significant differences in performance on
the Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity among
black and white subjects from low and middle income
socioeconomic levels.
Many researchers have suggested a relationship
between ethnicity and socioeconomic status.
Researchers
have taken both positions by recognizing that environment
as well as SES is an important factor when determining
performance on standardized tests and other culturally
content tests.
Other researchers have taken the
position that intelligence and performances on
standardized tests are hereditary and also maintain the
theory that blacks are innately inferior to whites.
The debate concerning standardized tests and other
culturally content tests has attributed to the differences
between black and white dialects and the social values
that exist between these two groups.
There is a greater
need to research why SES and ethnicity among low and
middle income blacks and whites affect performance on
tests.
This study hypothesized that:
Ho 1 :
Blacks, regardless of SES would perform
significantly better on the BITCH than whites.
Ho 2 :
Blacks of low SES would
p~rform
significantly
better on the BITCH than middle income blacks.
Ho
3~
Whites of low SES would perform significantly
39
better on the BITCH than middle income whites.
In January; 1976, one hundred and twenty subjects
were tested using the BITCH as the instrument.
was designed as a counterbalance for whites.
The BITCH
There were
100 items comprised of black verbal expressions.
The
test was administered to both low and middle income blacks
and whites.
A questionnaire ·was used to identify SES
levels.
Data were analyzed using a two way analysis of
variance.
The following variables were tested:
The
independent variables were ethnicity and socioeconomic
status.
The dependent variable was the verbal
performanc~
on the Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity.
Results showed that blacks performed significantly
better than whites at the .05 level and that both middle
income blacks and whites scores were higher than low
income blacks and whites.
Ethnicity and SES on the BITCH
was significant beyond the .01 level.
The findings in this study conclude that there is a
significant relationship between ethnicity and performance
on culturally content tests, and that performance on
tests is also influenced by socioeconomic factors.
Suggestions for Further Research
Since middle income subjects performed significantly
better than low income subjects, then this study
answered important research questions but provided new
40
research ideas and questions to be explored and solved.
This study has suggested that further investigation is
needed in comparing the socioeconomic levels of different
cultural groups when using any instrument.
Further study of the BITCH is needed to establish
norms in different geographical locations in the United
States and to determine the content validity of the
instrument.
Since the cultural variable is important in
measuring intelligence, this study can also be expanded
comparing and contrasting the variation of changes
among subjects in different countries when a culturally
content test is administered.
It might also be important to consider age as a
variable determining performance on the BITCH.
Also the
relationship between attitudinal predisposition to the
black experience and performance on the Black Intelligence
Test of Cultural Homogeneity deserves closer investigation.
References
41
REFERENCES
Boone, James A. Racial Differences on a Black
Intelligence Test. The Journal of Negro Education,
1974, ~' 429-436.
Canady, H. G.
The Psychology of the Negro. The
Encyclopedia of Psychology, 1946, 65,~3-412.
Clark, Kenneth B. and T. Parsons. The Social and Economic
Status of the Negro in the United States,
Daedalus, 1966, ~, 3-46.
Coleman, J. S. Equality of Educational Opportunity, U. S.
Office of Education (Washington D. C.}: U. S.
Government Printing Office, 1966, 281.
Friedhoff, Walter H.
Relationships Among Various
Measures of Socioeconomic Status, Social Class
Identification, Intelligence and School
Achievement. Doctoral Dissertation (Publication
No. 14, 106}, State University of Iowa, 1955.
Gay, G. and R. D. Abrahams.
Does the Pot Melt, Boil or
Brew? Black Children and White Assessment
Procedures. Journal of School Psychology, 1973,
11' 4.
Halpern, Florence C. Clinician Muskcat Listen.
Child Psychology, 1973, 10 1 .30-35.
Herrnstein, R.
44-61.
IQ.
Clinical
The Atlantic Monthly, 1971, 228,
Jensen, Arthur R. How Much Can We Boost IQ and
Scholastic Achievement? Harvard Euucational
Review, 1969, ~' 1-20.
Arthur Jensen Replies.
1969, ~' 4-6.
Psychology Today,
Let's Understand Skoduk and Skeels, Finally.
Educational Psychology, 1973,, 10, 30-35.
Jones, Reginald L. Black Psychology.
and Row, 1972 ..
42
New York:
Harper
43
Kennedy, Wallace A.
Intelligence and Economics: A
Confounded Relationship. New Jersey: General
Learning Press, 1973.
Meers, Dale L. Psychoanalytic Research and Intellectual
Functioning Ghetto-Reared, Black Children.
Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 1973, ~,
395-417.
Middleman, Ruth R. The Impact of Nonverbal Communication
of Affect on Children From Two Different Racial
and Socioeconomic Backgrounds. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1972.
Klineberg, Otto Negro-White Differences in Intelligence
Test Performances. American Psychology, 1963,
18, 198-203.
Nalls, Victor H. Relation of Scores on Davis-Eells
Games to Socioeconomic Status, Intelligence
Test Results and School Achievement. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 1960, ~, 119-129.
Peskay, J. and J. C. Masters. Effects of Race, Socioeconomic Status and Success or Failure upon
Contingent and Non-contingent Self-Reinforcement
in Children. Developmental Psychology, 1972,
!_, 139-145.
Pintner, R.
Intelligence Testing; Methods and Results.
New York: H. Holt and Company, 1931.
Rosenthal, R. Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.
Today, 1968, ~' 44-51.
Psychology
Robinson, L. D.
!,
IQ Test.
Essence, 1974,
8.
Samuda, Ronald J. Psychological Testing of American
Minorities. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company,
1975.
Shuey, A. M. The Testing of Negro Intelligence.
Social Science Press, 1966.
New
Silverstein, B. and R. Krate. Children of the Dark
Ghetto. New York: Praeger Publishers Inc.,
1975.
York~
44
Stone, Chuck A Black Paper: Standardized Tests:
True or False. Black Collegian, 1975, ~, 46.
White, Sheldon H. Social Implication of IQ.
Education Digest, 1975, 41, 7.
The
Williams, Robert L. Black Pride, Academic Relevance and
Individual Achievement. Counseling Psychologists,
1970, ~, 18-22.
The Silent Mugging of the Black Community.
Psychology Today, 1974, l, 32-36.
APPENDICES
45
46
QUESTIONNAIRE
NAME ___________________________
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
SEX:
AGE:
1.
Male -
2.
Female -
1.
18 - 20 years -
2.
20 - 25 years -
3.
25 years and over -
ETHNIC BACKGROUND:
1.
Caucasian -
2.
Black -
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:
1.
Did not graduate from high school -
2.
High School graduate -
3.
2 years of college -
4.
4 years of coliege -
5.
Graduate M.A. or Ph.D. -
ANNUAL INCOME:
1.
Under $8,300 -
2.
$8,300 - $15,500 -
3.
$15,500 - over -
41'
SUBJECTS
NO.
Group I - Low Income Blacks
ETHNIC
EDUCATIONAL ANNUAL
SEX AGE BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND INCOME
SCORES
1
1
2
2
2
1
81
2
2
1
2
2
1
74
3
2
1
2
2
1
24
4
1
3
2
1
1
31
5
2
3
2
2
1
81
.6
2
2
2
1
1
83
7
2
3
2
2
1
84
8
2
2
2
4
1
68
9
1
1
2
2
1
75
10
2
3
2
3
1
84
11
2
2
2
2
1
78
12
2
2
2
4
1
84
13
2
2
2
4
1
79
14
2
3
2
3
1
57
15
2
2
2
4
1
80
16
2
2
2
2
1
78
17
2
2
2
2
1
68
18
2
2
2
2
1
71
19
2
1
2
2
1
71
20
1
2
2
2
1
82
21
2
2
2
3
1
83
22
2
3
2
2
1
74
23
2
3
2
3
1
78
24
1
3
2
3
1
87
25
2
3
2
3
1
88
26
1
3
2
2
1
91
27
1
3
2
2
1
79
28
2
3
2
2
1
76
29
2
3
2
2
1
68
30
1
3
2
5
1
81
'
48
,-~--------------------------------------
,SUBJECTS
NO.
31
------------------------------- --
Group 2 - Middle Income Blacks
ETHNIC
EDUCATIONAL ANNUAL
SEX AGE BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND INCOME
"4
1
3
2
2
SCORES
86
32
2
3
2
5
2
92
33
1
3
2
4
2
90
34
1
3
2
4
2
86
35
2
2
2
4
2
93
36
1
2
2
4
2
89
37
1
3
2
5
2
89
2
3
2
3
2
75
39
1
3
2
4
2
72
40
2
2
2
3
2
80
41
1
3
2
4
2
86
42
2
3
2
3
2
83
43
1
3
2
2
81
44
2
3
2
1
-5
2
86
45
2
3
2
2
2
83
46
1
3
2
1
2
88
47
1
3
2
4
2
26
48
1
3
2
2
2
77
49
1
1
2
1
2
52
50
2
3
2
4
2
90
51
1
3
2
4
2
93
52
1
3
2
4
2
88
53
1
3
2
4
2
81
54
1
2
2
3
2
80
55
1
3
2
4
2
85
56
1
2
2
4
2
92
57
1
3
2
3
2
84
58
2
1
2
2
2
84
59
2
1
2
2
2
85
60
2
1
2
3
2
20
38
..
49
r---- ----------- ----------- - - ----- -------:suBJECTS
..
-----------------~----------------
-------------·----------- - -
------. ---- ---- -- -------------------
Group 3 - Low Income Whites
ETHNIC
EDUCATIONAL
AGE BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
ANNUAL
INCOME SCORES
NO.
SEX
61
1
1
1
3
1
25
62
2
3
1
2
1
65
63
2
3
1
4
1
45
64
2
1
1
2
1
60
65
2
3
1
4
1
68
66
2
2
1
4
1
72
67
1
3
1
4
1
74
68
2
2
1
2
1
71
69
2
3
1
2
1
61
70
1
2
1
2
1
70
71
2
3
1
2
1
64
"72
2
3
1
2
1
38
73
2
2
1
2
1
59
74
2
1
1
3
1
26
75
2
2
1
4
1
31
76
2
1
1
2
1
29
77
2
1
1
2
1
28
78
2
1
1
2
1
33
79
2
1
1
2
1
36
80
2
3
1
2
1
42
81
2
3
1
2
1
44
82
2
3
1
2
1
39
83
2
2
1
2
1
27
84
1
2
1
4
1
22
85
1
3
1
1
1
30
86
2
2
1
2
1
23
87
1
1
1
2
1
23
88
2
3
1
3
1
79
89
2
2
1
5
1
25
90
2
3
1
2
1
26
-~
5.0
------
--------··---------·
Group 4 - Middle Income Whites
SUBJECTS
NO.
··--- ···--
ETHNIC
SEX AGE BACKGROUND
EDUCATIONAL ANNUAL
BACKGROUND . INCOME
SCORES
91
2
3
1
3
2
57
92
1
3
1
3
2
52
93
1
2
1
3
2
27
94
1
3
1
1
2
66
95
1
3
1
3
2
56
96
1
3
1
5
2
72
97
2
3
1
4
2
68
98
2
3
1
5
2
70
99
1
3
1
5
2
75
100
101.
2
3
1
4
2
51
2
3
1
5
2
66
102
2
3
1
3
2
71
103
1
3
1
5
2
62
104
1
3
1
5
2
62
105
1
3
1
5
2
73
106
2
2
1
5
2
25
107
2
3
1
2
2
43
108
1
3
1
2
2
71
109
2
2
1
2
2
63
110
1
3
1
2
2
69
111
1
1
1
2
2
68
112
1
2
1
2
2
55
113
2
3
1
3
2
57
114
1
3
1
4
2
22
115
2
3
1
5
2
71
116
1
3
1
4
2
70
117
1
3
1
2
2
69
118
2
3
1
4
2
59
119
1
3
1
4
2
68
120
2
3
1
5
2
61