Conners 4 Manual Chapter 10: Race/Ethnicity

Race/Ethnicity

view all chapter tables | print this section

The historical and continuing marginalization of certain racial and ethnic groups in North America has the potential to either disadvantage groups (e.g., by yielding a higher score) or introduce unintended bias during the test construction. Accordingly, it was meaningful to examine how the Conners 4 operates within these groups to ensure equity standards are met. For the U.S. portion of the Conners 4 Normative Samples, race and ethnicity were categorized according to the U.S. Census Bureau classifications into the following five groups: Hispanic (regardless of race), Black, Asian, White, and Other (includes Native American, Multiracial, and other racial identities not otherwise listed). Youth whose race/ethnicity was classified as Asian or Other were excluded from MI and DTF analyses due to small sample sizes (for Other in particular, meaningful interpretation of group-level scores is challenging given that this category includes a multitude of race groups). Additionally, race/ethnicity analyses in this section are limited to youth who live in the U.S., as the Canadian sample sizes were too small to permit meaningful analyses. More details about the correspondence to the U.S. Census classifications can be found in Race/Ethnicity in chapter 7, Standardization. Differences among the U.S. racial and ethnic groups were explored with regard to the Conners 4 structure and scores. It was expected that there would be negligible differences in terms of race/ethnicity, as the test was designed to minimize the influence of cultural background, with the goal of generalizing to diverse populations, as described in chapter 6, Development.

First, MI was explored within the U.S. subsamples of the Conners 4 Total Samples. Tables 10.8 and 10.9 present the MI results for Conners 4 Parent and Teacher, respectively, for the comparison of Hispanic (N = 520 for Parent and N = 411 for Teacher) and White youth (N = 1,727 for Parent and N = 1,545 for Teacher). For Parent, there were no meaningful decreases in model fit, as hypothesized. The Satorra-Bentler χ² test was significant for the intercept model when testing Conners 4 scales, but other fit statistics did not show a decline in fit, indicating no evidence for a lack of invariance. For Teacher, while the comparison between loading and intercept models (also termed strong invariance) for the Content Scales was significantly statistically different when examined with the Satorra-Bentler χ² test, no other fit statistics showed any meaningful decrease in fit, indicating that strong invariance was met.

Tables 10.10 and 10.11 present the MI results for Parent and Teacher, respectively, for Black (N = 312 for Parent and N = 376 for Teacher) and White youth (N = 1,727 for Parent and N = 1,545 for Teacher). Neither rater form showed a meaningful decrease in model fit when comparing these two racial groups. While the Satorra-Bentler χ² test was significant for some comparisons (e.g., the intercept model when testing Content Scales), many other fit statistics did not show a decline in fit, ultimately supporting the overall invariance of the Conners 4 scales.

Due to the smaller sample size for Black youth on the Conners 4 Self-Report (N = 171), Hispanic youth (N = 286) and Black youth were combined into a larger group (N = 457), and the combined group was compared to White youth (N = 791) for MI analysis. It should be acknowledged that combining the groups in this way may limit interpretability of results, despite the necessity due to limited sample size. Future research will explore White vs. Hispanic and White vs. Black comparisons in larger samples to confirm the pattern of results presented within this section. Table 10.12 presents the MI results for Self-Report. The Satorra-Bentler χ² test was significant for comparisons of the Content Scales and the loading model of the Impairment & Functional Outcome Scales. However, many other fit statistics did not show a decline in fit across factor structure, thresholds, loadings, and intercepts for all scales, supporting evidence of the Conners 4’s ability to measure the construct with the same structure for White youth as it does for a combined sample of Black and Hispanic youth.

DTF analyses were examined next, to explore the invariance of the Conners 4 scales between Hispanic and White youth and between Black and White youth. An example of a DTF graph for the comparison of Black and White youth is provided in Figure 10.2. Test functioning curves for White youth and Black youth 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 all forms, as well as for the comparisons between Hispanic and White youth.

The effect size of the DTF statistics measured by the ETSSD are summarized in Table 10.13. The largest effect size across Parent, Teacher, and Self-Report, when comparing either Black or Hispanic youth to White youth, was ESSTD = |0.11|, representing a very small effect size. The differences between groups was negligible, demonstrating a lack of measurement bias between White, Black, and Hispanic groups and reinforcing the generalizability of the Conners 4.

Taken together, both MI and DTF analyses indicate that the Conners 4 demonstrates psychometric equivalence for White and Hispanic youth, and for White and Black youth, providing evidence to support the fair use of the test.

Figure 10.2. Differential Test Functioning by U.S. Race/Ethnicity: Inattention/Executive Dysfunction

a) Parent	b) Teacher
c) Self-Report

To investigate racial/ethnic groups in terms of their mean score differences, subsamples from the U.S. portion of the Normative Samples of Hispanic, Black, and Asian youth were compared, respectively, to a corresponding subsample of White youth from the Normative Samples that were matched on gender, age, language(s) spoken, clinical status, and PEL (PEL was matched Parent only). To preserve sample size, youth in the Asian and White sample for Self-Report were matched only in terms of age and gender. The demographic characteristics of the rated youth in the matched samples (and their raters, where applicable) are presented in appendix F in Tables F.38 to F.42.

Across all forms, comparisons between the matched Hispanic and White samples, Black and White samples, and Asian and White samples were analyzed via a series of ANOVAs, with results presented in Tables 10.14 to 10.22. These tables present the means and standard deviations of the Conners 4 scale scores, along with the significance tests and effect sizes.

When comparing ratings of Hispanic and White youth across all three forms, results indicated there were no statistically significant effects observed across all scales. Cohen’s d effect sizes, capturing the size of the difference between group means, demonstrated negligible to small effects (with Cohen’s d ranging from 0.00 to |0.26|).

When comparing ratings of Black and White youth, the Parent and Self-Report results showed no statistically significant differences across all scales. Cohen’s d effect sizes described negligible effects (with Cohen’s d ranging from 0.00 to |0.19|). The effect of student race on the Teacher form was statistically significant for Inattention/Executive Dysfunction, Hyperactivity, Impulsivity, Schoolwork, and DSM Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms, wherein ratings of Black students resulted in slightly higher scores than ratings of White students (Cohen’s d ranging from 0.00 to |0.43|). While race/ethnicity did not have a significant effect on the scale scores for Parent and Self-Report, the scale scores across race groups (White and Black comparisons) for several scales on the Conners 4 Teacher demonstrated small but statistically significant differences. This effect manifests as a difference of up to 4 points more for Black students on the Conners 4, with the largest effect observed on the Schoolwork scale (i.e., teachers were more likely to indicate that Black students exhibit more impairment at school when compared to White students).

When comparing ratings of Asian and White youth across all forms, results indicated that there were no statistically significant effects observed across all scales. The effect of race was minimal, as evidenced by negligible to small effect sizes (Parent Cohen’s d ranged from -0.25 to 0.44, Teacher Cohen’s d ranged from 0.00 to 0.34, and Self-Report Cohen’s d ranged from -0.29 to 0.29). These small effects were observed for a variety of scales that differed between rater forms, and the differences may manifest as an approximately 3 T-score-point gap between Asian and White youth.

Overall, there were small differences, the majority of which were not significant, observed between White youth and Hispanic, Black, and Asian youth on the Conners 4. While the results presented in this chapter provide evidence for a lack of measurement bias in the Conners 4, when considering obtained scores, as described in chapter 4, Interpretation, it is important to note that there was a small but statistically significant trend for Black students to be rated higher by teachers on some scales than White students on the Teacher form. This trend of ratings may be important to keep in mind when initiating contact with teacher raters, to encourage mindfulness of potential threats to providing unbiased ratings, or when comparing results for Black youth from the Parent and Self-Report form to the Teacher form, as difficulties may appear to vary across domains. This trend also reflects what has been documented in previous literature, such that teachers may perceive Black students’ behavior as more problematic than their White peers (Neal et al., 2003; Rowley et al., 2014). Together with the absence of evidence for measurement bias, there is support for equity in terms of race/ethnic groups for the Conners 4 and its appropriate use in racially and ethnically diverse populations.

< Back

Next >