Chance News 43: Difference between revisions

From ChanceWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
Line 4: Line 4:
==Forsooth!==
==Forsooth!==


==Item 1==
==Second thoughts about famous test of racial bias==
 
[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/science/18tier.html In bias test, shades of gray] John Tierney, The New York Times, November 17, 2008.
 
A recent study showed racial bias in the way that doctors treat their patients. Or maybe not. At the heart of the study of racial bias is a computerized test that measures how quickly you associate good words with faces of white subjects, bad words with faces of black subjects. If you do this more rapidly than when you associate bad words with faces of white subjects and good words with the faces of black subjects, then you have a racial bias.
 
<blockquote>The test is widely used in research, and some critics acknowledge that it’s a useful tool for detecting unconscious attitudes and studying cognitive processes. But they say it’s misleading for I.A.T. researchers to give individuals ratings like “slight,” “moderate” or “strong” — and advice on dealing with their bias — when there isn’t even that much consistency in the same person’s scores if the test is taken again.</blockquote>
 
The researchers who have developed the test argue that the test is very useful.
 
<blockquote>In a new a meta-analysis of more than 100 studies, Dr. Greenwald, Dr. Banaji and fellow psychologists conclude that scores on I.A.T. reliably predict people’s behavior and attitudes, and that the test is a better predictor of interracial behavior than self-description.</blockquote>
 
===Questions===
 
1. What is the technical term for "lack of consistency" in results if the test is taken again? Why is this a problem?
 
2. What is the technical term for the ability of a test to "reliably predict people's behavior and attitudes"? Why is this important?
 
==Item 2==
==Item 2==


==item 3==
==item 3==

Revision as of 15:09, 22 December 2008

Quotation

Forsooth!

Second thoughts about famous test of racial bias

In bias test, shades of gray John Tierney, The New York Times, November 17, 2008.

A recent study showed racial bias in the way that doctors treat their patients. Or maybe not. At the heart of the study of racial bias is a computerized test that measures how quickly you associate good words with faces of white subjects, bad words with faces of black subjects. If you do this more rapidly than when you associate bad words with faces of white subjects and good words with the faces of black subjects, then you have a racial bias.

The test is widely used in research, and some critics acknowledge that it’s a useful tool for detecting unconscious attitudes and studying cognitive processes. But they say it’s misleading for I.A.T. researchers to give individuals ratings like “slight,” “moderate” or “strong” — and advice on dealing with their bias — when there isn’t even that much consistency in the same person’s scores if the test is taken again.

The researchers who have developed the test argue that the test is very useful.

In a new a meta-analysis of more than 100 studies, Dr. Greenwald, Dr. Banaji and fellow psychologists conclude that scores on I.A.T. reliably predict people’s behavior and attitudes, and that the test is a better predictor of interracial behavior than self-description.

Questions

1. What is the technical term for "lack of consistency" in results if the test is taken again? Why is this a problem?

2. What is the technical term for the ability of a test to "reliably predict people's behavior and attitudes"? Why is this important?

Item 2

item 3