Parental education level (PEL) can sometimes be considered a proxy for or a contributing factor to one’s socioeconomic status (SES), with SES being a characteristic upon which fairness can unduly vary. It was expected that the constructs measured on the Conners 4 would be independent of influence from PEL. To test this hypothesis and ensure generalizability of scores from the Conners 4 scales, individuals in the Parent and Self-Report samples reported the PEL of the rated youth from one of five options: No high school diploma (PEL 1), High school diploma/GED (PEL 2), Some college or associate’s degree (PEL 3), Bachelor’s degree (PEL 4), or Graduate or professional degree (PEL 5). Within the Normative Samples, the proportion of parents in each of these groups matched recent U.S. and Canadian census values (more information can be found in Parental Education Level in chapter 7, Standardization). For the sake of MI and DTF analyses, PEL was recategorized into two groups comprising individuals with and without post-secondary education (i.e., Group 1 consists of PEL 1 and PEL 2: N = 855 for Parent and 530 for Self-Report; Group 2 consists of PEL 3, PEL 4, and PEL 5: N = 2,385 for Parent and N = 1,057 for Self-Report).

First, differences in the factor structure based on PEL were evaluated with MI. With more stringent models tested at each level, neither the Conners 4 Parent nor the Conners 4 Self-Report displayed meaningful deterioration in model fit (see Table 10.29 and 10.30 for Parent and Self-Report, respectively). For Parent, some model comparisons were significant using the Satorra-Bentler χ² test (e.g., the intercept model of the content scales; p < .001); however, the indicators must be considered in tandem, and many other model fit statistics did not show meaningful deterioration of fit. Therefore, the observed change in model fit is minor and not meaningful, such that invariance between the PEL groups on the construct assessed by the Conners 4 could reasonably be assumed. These results support the invariance of the Conners 4 scale scores across factor structure, thresholds, loadings, and intercepts among youth with parents with and without post-secondary education, meeting the first-step criteria for establishing its unbiased and generalizable use with these populations.

Next, differences in the scales’ functioning for the two broad PEL groups were explored with DTF. An example of a DTF graph for the comparison of low PEL and high PEL groups for Parent and Self-Report is provided in Figure 10.4. Test functioning curves for each group are depicted, along with a shaded band to display a 95% confidence interval, and the two groups’ curves are almost completely overlapping, demonstrating a lack of difference for the Inattention/Executive Dysfunction scale. Similar results were found for all scales across both rater forms. The effect sizes from DTF analyses are summarized in Table 10.31. Results from both Parent and Self-Report show trivial differences between PEL groups (e.g., the largest effect size was |.08|, representing a negligible effect). The lack of differential functioning of the Conners 4 scales between the different PEL groups is further evidence of the test’s equivalence across demographic subgroups. Taken together, both MI and DTF analyses indicate that the Conners 4 can generalize across PEL, as there are no meaningful differences in the measurement properties of the test.

Figure 10.4. Differential Test Functioning by Parental Education Level: Inattention/Executive Dysfunction

a) Parent

b) Self-Report

Next, the five PEL groups were compared in terms of the observed mean score group differences using data from the entire Normative Samples. PEL was compared via a series of ANCOVAs, with covariates to statistically control for the effects of other demographic factors (i.e., gender, language[s] spoken, race/ethnicity, clinical status, and age). Significant ANCOVA results (i.e., p < .01) were followed up with Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) post-hoc test to evaluate pairwise comparisons, alongside estimates of effect sizes for the omnibus test and pairwise differences.

Results are provided in Tables 10.32 for Parent and Table 10.33 for Self-Report. There were no significant effects of PEL on the Conners 4 Self-Report scales, as evidenced by the negligible effect sizes (η² ranged from .00 to .01). Statistically significant differences between PEL groups were only observed for the Conners 4 Parent Peer Interactions and DSM Conduct Disorder Symptoms scales, but the sizes of these effects were not practically significant (partial η² = .01 and .02, respectively). The post-hoc analyses revealed that for Peer Interactions, the PEL 1 group scored significantly higher than the PEL 3 group; however, the effect size was small (Cohen’s d = 0.26). For the DSM Conduct Disorder Symptoms scale, the post-hoc analysis revealed that the PEL 1 group scored significantly higher than all other groups, with small effect sizes (Cohen’s d = 0.26 to 0.31).

In line with expectations, PEL does not appear to have a significant influence on Conners 4 test scores, as evidenced by the lack of statistically and practically significant group differences in mean scores. Therefore, these results, along with the MI and DTF findings, support the unbiased use of the Conners 4 for youth with parents with diverse educational backgrounds.