Nonbiased Assessment: A Need for
Operationalism
JAMES B. DUFFEY
JOHN SALVIA
JAMES TUCKER
JAMES YSSELDYKE
Abstract: The current technical history
of nonbiased assessment is highlighted.
Definitions of fairness and experts'
attempts to alleviate problems associated
with bios in assessment are reviewed.
Factors relating to nonbiased assessment
are emphasized that normally do not
receive sufficient attention. Decisions
currently made as a result of the
assessment process are reviewed and an
examination made of how decisions
based on inappropriate evaluation can
negate the validity of the assessment
process. Finally, the utility of many
recent efforts to resolve the problems of
bias in assessment is questioned and it is
suggested that very basic systematic
changes are needed before real progress
can be mode in reducing bias in
assessment.
JAMES B. DUFFEY is Director, National
Learning Resource Center of
Pennsylvania, Montgomery County
Intermediate Unit, King of Prussia; JOHN
SALVIA is Professor of Special
Education, Pennsylvania State
University, University Park; JAMES
TUCKER is President, Educational
Directions, Inc., Austin, Texas; and
JAMES YSSELDYKE is Director, Institute
for Research on Learning Disabilities,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
• Comprehensive assessment is required before handicapped children or those with suspected handicapping conditions can receive
special education services. However, educators are finding that children identified for
special education do not reflect the cultural,
economic, and racial composition of society as
a whole (Tucker, 1980) and that assessment
yields a disproportionate number of minority
children. Accusations of racial, ethnic, and
cultural bias have followed, with criticism leveled specifically at both the assessment process and the assessors.
In the wake of such complaints, the judicial
system has become heavily involved, and its
findings seem to confirm the existence of discriminatory practices. As a result, the federal
district court in northern California, for example, has recently permanently enjoined the
use of standardized intelligence tests for the
purpose of identifying Black school children
for placement in educable mentally retarded
classes (Larry P. v. Riles, 1979). Jensen's (1980)
recent statements that Black children's low test
scores are not the result of cultural bias in tests
themselves may revive the controversy once
again.
Indeed, the concept of biased assessment
does suggest images of prejudice, discrimination, and stereotyping. More precisely, biased
assessment refers to a constant error in decisions, predictions, and inferences about members of particular groups (Cleary, Humphreys,
Kendrick, & Wesmen, 1975). Bias can result in
decisions that are too positive as well as too
negative; for example, biased test results may
Exceptional Children, Volume 47, Number 6. Copyright © 1981 The Council for Exceptional Children.
Exceptional Children
427
Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
cause some children to be placed in situations
where they are likely to succeed. This paper
examines the definitions of nonbiased assessment and offers possible solutions to the problem as suggested by the literature. A more
pragmatic and perhaps more difficult solution
is suggested.
DEFINITIONS
The literature is replete with information about
bias in assessment. Unfortunately, much of
this information lacks utility; proposed solutions have been only marginally successful.
Attempts to define nonbiased assessment date
back long before discriminatory assessment
practices gained national attention through
legislative and judicial decisions. Unfortunately, there still is little agreement on what
constitutes nonbiased assessment.
Cole (1973) and Petersen and Novick (1976)
have described a number of models of fairness,
including the following:
The Quota Model-A test is unbiased if the
criterion score predicted from the common
regression line is consistently neither too high
nor too low for members of a subgroup.
The Equal Risk Model-A test is unbiased
when persons with the same likelihood of success on the criterion task have equal chances
of being selected.
The Constant Ratio Model-A test is fair
when it results in the same selection of proportions of different cultural groups as would
be achieved if the person doing the selection
had available each subject's exact score on the
criterion measure. Thus, a test is fair if it selects the candidates who will be successful in
meeting the eventual criteria for success.
The Conditional Probability Model-"For
both minority and majority groups whose
members can achieve a satisfactory criterion
score (Y - Yp), there should be the same probability of selection, regardless of group membership." (Cole, 1973. p. 240)
Biased decision making may be attributed to
incomplete and inconsistent operationalizing
of definitions and/or criteria on which decisions are based. The inherent problem is that
decisions are made on the basis of situation
specific (and perhaps even assessor specific)
definitions and rules. For example, mental retardation is not defined by observable behavior, but by intelligence and adaptive behavior,
two constructs inferred from unspecified be-
havior. Different tests of intelligence sample
different behaviors and are imperfectly correlated (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1978). Consequently, the terms "intelligence" and "adaptive behavior," which define mental
retardation, are themselves poorly defined.
Even less well defined are the criteria by
which decisions about educational placement
and special services are made.
Without precision and consistency, extraneous variables can inappropriately influence
decisions. The decisions facing psychologists,
teachers, and administrators are usually complex and often must be made on the basis of
ill defined criteria. For example, assigning
grades, making referrals, classifying deviance,
and recommending services all involve subjective decision making. In these nebulous situations, the preconceived attitudes of- the assessor can influence judgments made about
the assessed. A fair amount of research has
been devoted to the study of variables that may
influence subjective decisions about achievement and the need for special services. Such
variables may include: father's occupation, facial attractiveness, residual surgical scars, eligibility for special educational services, and
diagnostic labels (Foster & Salvia, 1977; Salvia,
Algozzine, & Sheare, 1977; Weierbach, 1977).
OPINIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
Many of those interested in unbiased assessment have expressed little hope for significant
developments in the near future. Adler (1968)
has written that tests themselves are cultural
artifacts and that to ignore this fact may lead
to erroneous assumptions about the meaning
of test results. The very taking of tests, according to Adler, seems to be a part of the Western
cultural milieu. If a test is used for educational
or employment selection, and the educational
or employment institution is part of the culture, then the test is going to reflect that culture.
Cole (1975) noted that schools represent a
culture that must be learned by the children
who attend them. To be successful in school,
children must deal with the culture represented by the school. Tests, including intelligence tests, measure past learning and predict
future accomplishment only to a limited extent. Children who are culturally different reflect culturally different achievement when
they take tests. To expect otherwise is folly.
March
428
Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
1981
Anastasi (1961) noted that "when we use
tests to compare different groups, the only
question the tests can answer directly is: 'How
do these groups differ under existing cultural
conditions?' This limitation of tests may appear so obvious as to be trite" (p. 389). However, the fact that this relationship between
tests and culture is not so obvious is suggested
by the evidence that American educators are
deeply involved in a search for culture free
measures as they seek to respond to the mandates of Public Law 94-142, the Education for
All Handicapped Children Act of 1975.
Considerable disparity exists between ways
in which bias has been conceptualized and
ways in which educators have addressed the
issue of bias in assessment. Mercer (1977) has
criticized efforts to engage in fair testing as
characterized by the following kinds of proposals:
Proposed Solutions
Development of "culture free" tests. "Culture
free" tests appear at first glance to be a plausible solution. Such efforts have met with failure because there is no such thing as culture
free learning (Padilla & Garza, 1975). Learning,
obviously, occurs in environmental contexts.
Development of "culture fair" tests. Efforts
have been made to construct tests in which
items are "balanced" to represent multiple
languages and cultures, but such efforts have
been unsuccessful. "Culture fair" tests have
not demonstrated good predictive validity
(Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1978); they are poor predictors of success in a monocultural school
system and have been rejected, for the most
part, by the dominant cultural group.
Development of "culture specific" tests. As
noted earlier, efforts have been made toward
developing "culture specific" tests (specific to
the Black culture, Hispanic culture, etc.) such
as the BITCH Test (Williams, 1972). These
tests, like culture fair tests, have demonstrated
low predictive validity and have been rejected
by the dominant cultural group. In addition,
developing such tests has proved difficult because no one test will satisfactorily assess the
heterogeneous group of children in anyone
cultural or ethnic group.
Use of Piagetian tests. The use of Piagetian
developmental scales has also been studied
(Meyer & Elkind, 1975). Such efforts have not
produced fair assessment because specific items
are as culturally dependent as items on more
traditional scales, and predictive validity is
low.
Linguistic translation of existing tests. Efforts
to administer tests in a child's native language
have often consisted of translating existing
tests into other languages (Alzate, 1978).
Translation changes item difficulty and destroys the applicability of existing norms,
which, unfortunately, are too often used, despite item translation. Once again, predictive
validity for success in a monocultural school
system has been low.
Alteration of administration procedures. Assessors often try to achieve fairness by changing administration procedures in testing handicapped youngsters. Verbal tests, for example,
are given in sign language to deaf and hearing
impaired children. Nonstandardized administration procedures disallow the use of existing
norms and, unless social population norms are
constructed, norm referenced interpretations
are invalid (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1978).
Training children to take tests. Some researchers and practitioners have advocated that children be trained to take tests (Duffy, 1974; Oakland, 1972). Specific procedures have ranged
from teaching them to become "test wise" to
task familiarization training. The procedure is
time consuming, but it may be a worthwhile
alternative to traditional assessment procedures. It will not, however, reduce many aspects of bias in decision making.
Use of pluralistic norms for existing tests. Mercer and Lewis (1978) developed a System of
Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment (SOMPA),
which uses existing tests but pluralistic norms.
Separate regression equations are used to compute the estimated learning potential of children from Black, Anglo, and Chicano groups.
One difficulty with such a procedure lies in
accounting for the extremely heterogeneous
nature of anyone cultural or ethnic group.
Another problem may be predictive validity
for success in the majority culture.
Criterion referenced assessment. A parallel between job placement and educational placement tests is suggested by Siegel and Leahy
(1974). They suggest that tests used for job se-
Exceptional Children
429
Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
lection should focus on tasks needed on the
job. Persons demonstrating the ability to learn
a sample of the tasks required on a specific job
should qualify for that job. This implies that
other factors should be eliminated from tests
used in the job selection process.
Similar logic could be used in the area of
educational selection. Such tests would attempt to measure only the mastery level of
children in various content areas and would
leave the comparison of children to the
standardized testers. Criterion referenced tests
offer more utility in the day to day instructional setting and can be helpful in the selection process because they measure mastery of
job required tasks. Again, before jumping at
this possibility, educators should carefully
consider the personnel and dollar resources
necessary to implement a criterion referenced
mastery system.
Learning potential assessment device (LPAD).
Feuerstein (1979) and others have proposed
assessing an individual's learning potential
rather than his or her store of information and
existing capacities, factors traditionally tapped
by intelligence tests. Specifically, Feuerstein
sees a person's potential for modification in a
focused learning task as a fairer means of assessment since it may reduce the effects of previous deprivation when compared with traditional testing techniques.
There is, however, no reason to believe that
potential for modification is any less subject
to cultural influences than other constructs we
typically attempt to measure. If learning potential assessment devices were to be used as
we currently use traditional assessment devices to label, provide placement, and finance
programs, they would have the same potential
for bias.
Testing moratoriums. The NAACP, at its 1974
meeting, proposed a moratorium on standardized testing whenever such tests had not been
corrected for cultural bias. A similar position
was taken by the CEC Delegate Assembly at its
1978 international convention (1978). Such a
position, if generally adopted, would disqualify most tests for general use. These statements
are tantamount to calling for an across-theboard cessation of standardized testing.
According to Flaugher (1974), many advocates of testing worry about the consequences
of not testing, arguing that the use of subjec-
tive impressions for selection will make educational and employment institutions less accountable for their selection procedures.
Linden, Linden, and Bodine (1974) feel that
until tests are improved or replaced, they represent our best objective sources of information for selection purposes. Padilla and Garza
(1975) point out that educators will continue
to need instruments and techniques for assessing the academic progress of children. But
they suggest that they be used for diagnosis,
the purpose for which they were originally invented. Padilla and Garza see most abuses of
standardized tests arising from the selection
process, rather than the diagnostic process.
Unfortunately, it is often difficult to distinguish between the two.
Special educators must increase th;~ir understanding of the nature of assessment and
the importance of technical adequacy in testing. They should consider more carefully the
types of decisions made as the result of assessment. Perhaps the entire classification and
placement process in special education should
be reconsidered and more attention paid to the
implications of acculturation.
A brief examination of each of these topics
follows.
ASSESSMENT
Assesment in special education is broadly defined as a process of collecting data for the
purpose of helping professionals make decisions about individuals. Assessment is not
synonymous with testing; testing is simply
one part of assessment. Assessment may include direct observation ~f individuals in natural environments, obtaining data from others
by means of interviews, and obtaining historical and current information by reviewing records. Clearly, many different kinds of data may
be collected in the process of decision making;
in its broadest sense, this data collection process is assessment.
According to Cromwell, Blashfield, and
Strauss (1975), a complete diagnostic-intervention process consists of historical-etiological information, currently assessable characteristics, specific treatments or interventions,
and a particular prognosis-all elements required in one form or another by Public Law
94-142. To attain such comprehensiveness, a
combination of assessment techniques or
models must be used. There is nothing new
March 1981
430
Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
about this process or the techniques involved.
Nor is the process static; it can be adapted to
fit local needs.
The importance of including parents as an
integral part of ongoing assessment deserves
special mention. Schools should not presume
to make decisions about special placement and
programing, other than that provided to every
child in a given school system, without involving the parents in the deliberations leading up to the decision, as well as in the decision itself. Parents are important sources for
determining cultural factors in assessment and
placement decisions.
Assessment is also a continuous process,
since conditions surrounding a child are always changing. Decisions regarding a pupil's
placement or educational programing should
always be considered tentative and subject to
constant review, as well as to periodic, comprehensive reassessment and possible revision.
Technical Adequacy
When assessment devices are used to make important decisions about pupils, it is imperative
that those devices be technically adequate.
Unfortunately, technical adequacy is often ignored by professionals, despite the training
generally provided in university programs.
Questions of bias may not even be relevant if
technical adequacy has not been obtained.
Several factors must be considered.
The first is the issue of standardization.
Scores earned on norm referenced tests reflect
the pupil's performance relative to performance of those on whom the test was
standardized. If a test is not properly standardized for a particular student, such comparisons
will be meaningless.
A second consideration is that of reliability.
Reliability refers to the consistency with which
a device measures a trait or set of behaviors.
Reliability indices show how much error is
present in any measure. In assessment, a person is interested in obtaining results that adequately reflect student traits, characteristics,
or behaviors. Results should be as free from
error as possible. Nunnally (1967) provides a
yardstick for reliability. He notes that tests
used in experimentation must have reliabilities exceeding .50, but tests used to make important decisions about pupils should have re-
liabilities exceeding .90. It has been
demonstrated that many of the norm referenced devices typically used to make decisions about pupils lack necessary reliability
(Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1978; Ysseldyke & Salvia,
1974). When unreliable tests are used to provide data for decision making, decisions may
be based more on error than on actual characteristics.
The third issue in considering technical adequacy involves validity of the devices and
procedures used to collect data about children.
Tests must be valid for the particular purposes
for which they are used. Assuming that tests
measure what they purport to measure, when
there is little empirical evidence to substantiate this, can lead to bias in decision making.
Types of Decisions
Educators need different kinds of data to help
make different kinds of decisions. Abuse in
assessment can occur when educators select
their decision making procedures and devices
without regard to the types of decisions necessary; for example, when they use tests for
purposes other than those for which they were
designed. For example, norm referenced, individually administered intelligence tests were
originally designed to help make classification
and placement decisions. They are helpful
tools in predicting future success. However,
the routine practice of engaging in profile
analyses of subtest scores earned on norm referenced tests is often observed. Such efforts,
as discussed by Kaufman (1979), are made to
identify specific ability strengths and weaknesses and to provide data for use in instructional planning. This practice is without empirical support and may actually constitute
abuse (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1978).
ASSessment plays a key role in making educational decisions and should provide the
necessary information. Salvia and Ysseldyke
(1978) identified five different kinds of decisions made in educational settings:
1. Screening. In screening, data are collected
to help professionals identify the extent to
which a student's behavior differs from
"normal" or "average" behavior. Students
whose behavior sufficiently deviates from
the "normal" are typically identified as
candidates for further assessment.
Exceptional Children
431
Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
2. Placement/classification decisions. Assessment data are routinely collected in educational settings to help professionals decide how to classify students, to declare
children eligible for special educational
services, and to aid in making placement
decisions.
3. Instructional planning decisions. Assessment data are routinely collected to help
educational personnel plan instructional
interventions for children. Specific efforts
are made to identify an individual's educationally relevant strengths and weaknesses, and to plan precisely what to teach
and how to teach. Data collected during assessment serves as the basis for planning
both long term educational goals and specific instructional objectives.
4. Individual pupil evaluation. Teachers, parents, and students themselves have a right
as well as a need to know how a pupil is
progressing in his or her educational program. Assessment data enables decision
makers to judge the progress being made,
both in the achievement of specific instructional objectives and in reference to a local
or national sample of chronological or grade
level peers.
5. Program evaluation decisions. Data are collected for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of educational programs. Typically, the progress of students in two or
more programs is compared, or the attainment of program objectives is checked.
Only when a placement category carries a
cultural or social stigma do the difficulties associated with biased placement emerge. The
categories of "mental retardation," "emotional
disturbance," "learning disabilities," and, to
some extent, "minimal brain dysfunction,"
give rise to the greatest problems in biased
placement, and thus, in biased assessment.
These categories create problems because they
are based on social norms for ill defined symptoms which appear as much because of normal
culture diversity as because of some handicapping condition. It is often impossible to tell the
difference between the two.
It is sometimes erroneously assumed that
placement in a special education class is equal
to remedial programing and individualized instruction. While children are placed in self
contained special education classes under the
assumption that better education will occur,
there is little evidence of significant improvement in skill areas, especially when more
mildly handicapping conditions are involved.
In fact, the social and academic isolation that
often accompanies such placement may have
a negative effect on the child, as suggested by
Sindelar and Deno (1978) in their positive review of resource rooms.
It is quite possible, with.present technology
and expertise, to develop an educational program that provides for the needs of all children
without categorizing any of them beyond their
ability to perform various skills.
Errors have been made in the past by using
assessment data collected for one purpose as
a vehicle to meet other assessment needs. As
a result, decisions have been made that are
both invalid and biased.
Acculturation
Placement Decisions and Testing
Special educators are caught in a dilemma. On
one hand, they want to guard against biased
labeling of children; on the other hand, they
are aware that funds will not be allocated for
use with handicapped children unless the equitable expenditure of funds for a specified
population is assured. They want to provide
specific educational programs to meet the
identified needs of children, but when special
education is the only instructional situation
offering such assistance, they are hesitant to
approve placement because of the inherent difficulties that may be involved.
Any child's performance on a test is a reflection of past learning in both formal and informal educational environments. As noted by
Salvia and Ysseldyke (1978), acculturation is
the most important characteristic in evaluating
a child's performance on a test. To the extent
that a child's acculturation differs from the acculturation of those on whom a test is
standardized, norm referenced decisions, based
upon test results, may actually be both invalid
and biased.
When norm referenced tests are used to
make decisions about students, assessors must
examine the extent to which the assessed student is similar to those on whom the test is
standardized. This is especially true when a
child exhibits one or more specific handicapping conditions (e.g., deafness and blindness,
or cerebral palsy).
432
March 1981
Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
CONCLUSIONS
The options are clear: Either eliminate condescending labels and categories or dramatically improve the quality of assessment occurring before a child is placed.
Assuming that children have been segregated on the basis of biased testing procedures,
educators have sought a magic formula to
eliminate bias from tests used to place children
in special education classes with an implied
social stigma. They have not been successful
in this undertaking. There is far more evidence
that the use of test data has been the biasing
factor rather than the tests themselves. Test
data are no more valid than the professional
judgments made in applying them.
The problem of bias in assessment will not
be resolved until educators can operationally
specify the criteria to be used in decision making. Until this time, attempts to eliminate bias
will be as effective as applying a bandaid to a
hemorrhage.
If the needs of special education children are
to be met, the symptoms of handicapping conditions should be stated in operationally defined terms and applied equally to all candidates for special services. Such a move implies
the elimination of most, if not all, categories
now classified as "mildly handicapping conditions," leaving only severely handicapped
categories. This would eliminate many problems identified with biased assessment. Few
people object to the more severe labels, probably because any stigma involved in a severely
handicapping condition is inherent in the severity of the condition itself and is not a function of the label applied.
Education would be dramatically improved
by taking the very difficult and possibly utopian step of abandoning as irrelevant such
venerable constructs as intelligence, perceptual-motor ability, and adaptive behavior.
Professionals should also abandon such imprecise diagnostic classifications as "mental
retardation," "emotional disturbance," and
"learning disabilities," substituting "learning
objectives achieved." Skill development levels
should be routinely assessable, not only with
less bias but with adequate levels of reliability.
Assessment would then be based on the actual
service provided by the schools: the teaching
of a curriculum.
Federal law requires that steps be taken to
insure the use of nonbiased assessment pro-
cedures for special education students. The
path, unfortunately, is blocked by the educational system itself. We cannot achieve meaningful nonbiased assessment by using current
norm referenced devices and current classification systems; but it may be possible to make
progress in achieving nonbiased assessment
by using criterion referenced tests and classification systems based on purely educational
criteria. Pursuing these alternatives, however,
will create financial burdens and will place
innovative responsibilities on the field. The
question is: Are taxpayers willing to pay the
necessary price?
REFERENCES
Adler, M. Intelligence testing of the culturally disadvantaged: Some pitfalls. The Journal of Negro
Education, 1968,37(4), 364-369
Alzate, G. Analysis of testing problems in Spanish
speaking children. Paper presented at the World
Congress on the Future of Special Education, Stirling, Scotland, June 1978.
CEe Delegate Assembly. Resolutions, Exceptional
Children, 1978,45(1), 66.
Anastasi, A. Psychological tests: Uses and abuses,
Tenchers College Record, 1961, 62, 389-393.
Cleary, T., Humphreys, L., Kendrick, S" & Wesman,
A. Educational uses of tests with disadvantaged
students. American Psychologist, 1975,30, 15-4l.
Cole, M. Culture, cognition and I.Q. testing. The
Nntionnl Elementary Principnl, 1975, 54(4), 49~
52.
Cole, N. S. Bias in selection, Journal of Educational
Measurement, 1973,10,237-255.
Cromwell, R., Blashfield, R. K" & Strauss, J. S. Criteria for classification. In N Hobbs (Ed.), Issues in
classification (Vol. 1). San Francisco: [ossey Bass,
1975,
Duffy, 0, Fnctors affecUng the performance of disadvantaged, rural, Appalachian children on
measures of learning aptitude, Unpublished master's thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1974.
Feuerstein, R. The dynamic ossessment of retorded
performers: The leorning potenUol assessment device, theory, instrument ond techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1979.
Flaugher, R. L. Bias in testing: A review and discussion (TM Report No. 36). Princeton, N,J.: Educational Testing Services, 1974. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 099 431)
Foster, G., & Salvia, J, Teacher response to the label
of learning disabled as a function of demand characteristics, Exceptional Children, 1977, 43, 533~
534.
Jensen, A. Bias in mental testing. New York, Free
Press, 1980.
433
Exceptional Children
Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
Kaufman, A. S. Intelligent testing with the WISCR.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1979.
Larry P. v . Riles. No. C-71-2270 RFP, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California (June 1979).
Linden, K. W.. Linden, J- D., & Bodine, R. 1. Test
bias: Fuss n' facts. Measurement and Evaluation
in Guidance, 1974,7(3), 163-168.
Mercer, f. SOMPA Workshop. Presented for St. Paul
Public Schools, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1977.
Mercer, J., & Lewis, J. System of multicultural pluralistic assessment. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1978.
Meyer, J- S., & Elkind, D. From figurative operative
expectancy in the perceptual judgments of children.Developmental Psychology, 1975,11 (6), 814823.
Nunnally, J. Psychometric theory. New York: MeGraw-Hill, 1967.
Oakland, T. The effects of test-wiseness materials on
standardized test performance of preschool disadvantaged children. Journal of School Psychology, 1972,10(4),355-360.
Padilla, A. M., & Garza, B. M. 6 cases of cultural
myopia The National Elementary Principal, 1975,
54(4), 5:3-58.
Petersen, N. S., & Novick, M. R An evaluation of
some models for culture-fair selection. Journal of
Educational Measurement, 1976,13(1), 3-29.
Salvia, J., Algozzine, B., & Sheare, J- Attractiveness
and school achievement Journal of School Psychology, 1977,15,60-67.
Salvia, J-, & Ysseldyke, J- E. Assessment in special
and remedial education. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1978.
Siegel, A. L, & Leahy, W. R. Nonverbal and culturefair performance prediction procedures: III. Cross
validation. Wayne, Pa.: Applied Psychological
Services, 1974.
Sindelar, P. T., & Deno, S. 1. The effectiveness of
resource planning. Journal of Special Education,
1978,12(1), 17-29.
Tucker, J. A. Ethnic proportions in classes for the
learning disabled issuing on non-biased assessment. Journal of Special Education, 1980, 14(1),
93-105.
Weierbach, J. Students' obesity as a biasing factor in
teachers' academic expectations. Unpublished
master's thesis, Pennsylvania State University.
1977,
Williams, R 1. The BITCH-lOO: A culture-specific
test. Bethesda, Md.: National Institute of Mental
Health (DHEW), 1972. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 070 799)
Ysseldyke, J- E., & Salvia, J. A. Diagnostic-prescriptive teaching: Two models. Exceptional Children,
1974,41, 181-186.
434
March 1981
Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016