{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018979057591623036, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.534188034188034, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Investigating Group Differences on Cognitive Tests Using Spearman's Hypothesis: An Evaluation of Jensen's Method

Jensen has posited a research method to investigate group differences in cognitive tests. This method consists of first extracting a general intelligence factor by means of exploratory factor analysis. Secondly, similarity of factor loadings across groups is evaluated in an attempt to ensure that the same constructs are measured. Finally, the correlation is computed between the loadings of the tests on the general intelligence factor and the mean differences between groups on the tests. This part is referred to as a test of "Spearman's Hypothesis", which essentially states that differences in g account for the main part of differences in observed scores. Based on the correlation, inferences are made with respect to group differences in general intelligence. The validity of these inferences is investigated and compared to the validity of inferences based on multi-group confirmatory factor analysis. For this comparison, population covariance matrices are constructed which incorporate violations of the central assumption underlying Jensen's method concerning the existence of g and/or violations of Spearman's Hypothesis. It is demonstrated that Jensen's method is quite insensitive to the violations. This lack of specificity is observed consistently for all types of violations introduced in the present study. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis emerges as clearly superior to Jensen's method.