Fania R. Gärtner & Peter J. Tellegen
Dpt. of Psychology, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
2008
The SON-R 5.5-17: A Valid Estimate of Intelligence for Minorities?
An Explorative Study on the Usefulness of the SON-R 5.5-17
Intelligence Test for Roma Children
In: Kopcanová (ed.), Equal Access to Quality Education for Children from Socially Disadvantaged
Settings (pp. 81-97).
Bratislava: The Research Institute for Child Psychology and Patopsychology & Education Section,
Slovak Commission for UNESCO.
1
ABSTRACT
The aim of the present study was to explore to what extent the nonverbal child
intelligence test, the SON-R 5.5-17, is an accurate assessment instrument for Roma children
between six and twelve years old. In the matter of this research, 30 Roma children living in three
different regions were tested: Amsterdam, Bratislava and Kosice. Five of these children were
adopted by non-Roma. Additionally to the data derived from the IQ-test scores, data was received
by semi-open interviews held with the teachers of the tested children. The interviews brought
forth quantitative data on the pupils school performance and qualitative data on special issues
playing in Roma education. As the data show, with an average IQ-score below 80 IQ-points, the
children scored low on the test. Furthermore, it is found that there is a positive correlation
between IQ-scores and school achievement. However, the results of the interviews point to a
discrepancy between the low IQ-test scores and low school performance on the one hand and
the high competence to cope in everyday life on the other hand. Moreover, the qualitative data of
the present study specify that extreme absenteeism and early school drop out are major
problems in the education of Roma children. Additionally, language barriers are an extra difficulty
when teaching Roma. The study indicates that the SON-R 5.5-17 is a useful test instrument for
Roma children. Though, due to differences in cultural conditions, experiences and social
economic status of the Roma conclusions with regard to their abilities on the basis of their IQscores have to be drawn with caution.
2
INTRODUCTION
Till today, the Roma population is a disadvantaged minority group in the Western society.
Regarding the fact that Roma, Gypsy and Traveller1 communities are the largest ethnic minority
within the EU, the need for integration policies is high, especially in countries with a high Roma
population, such as Slovakia and other countries in Eastern Europe (European Commission,
2004). A fundamental instrument to reduce segregation and discrimination is integration in the
national education system and subsequent enrolment on the labor market (European
Commission, 2004). However, such first step to realize social inclusion of Roma is not reached
yet. Unemployment rates among the group of Roma, Gypsy and Traveller communities are up to
80% in some new member states of the EU. This underprivileged role of Roma is also present at
schools as the percentage of Roma attending special education shows. In 2002/2003 more than
half of the children schooled in remedial special schools in Slovakia were Roma (European
Commission, 2004), while the proportion of Roma in Slovakia is only 1.7% (Statistical Office of
the Slovakian Republic). For the Netherlands no specific numbers about Roma schooling are
available. However, a trend research by Timmermans and Hurk (2002) presents numbers
regarding Travellers, Sinti and Roma as one group. This study indicates that 20% of this group
attends special schooling. Compared to the majority group of these countries the percentage of
Roma children in special schools is exceedingly high.
The high proportions of Roma children attending special school is assumed to be based
on erroneous placements, based on discrimination by teachers, students, mistaken guidance of
parents and biased test results (ERRC, 2004). To define if a child needs special education, next
to judgements of teachers and parents, psychological capacity tests are used as assessment
instruments. As Reynolds (1982) states, tests are linked to the culture in which they are
developed, and therefore tests are culturally loaded. Those cultural influences of tests can
account for different performances of particular racial-ethnic populations on these tests. As a
result, the use of psychological tests can lead to an unequal treatment of minorities (Suzuki &
Valencia, 1997). The question arises to what extent traditional intelligence tests do give an
accurate estimation of the capacities of Roma children (ERRC, 2005). For a number of reasons
these traditional tests may lead to possibly biased test scores for minority groups. One reason
can be seen in the ethnocentrism of tests. A test is ethnocentric if it refers to a special culture, or
it contains idiomatic items (Evers & Nijenhuis 1999; Hofstee, 1990). Secondly, the verbal
character of a test can account for the fact that children with other cultural backgrounds than the
majority culture score lower on capacity tests than children from the majority culture, as they
usually are not tested in their mother tongue (Naglierie, Rojahn, Matto, & Aquilino, 2005). Finally,
regarding the fact that a test consists cultural loaded elements, for groups other than the majority
group special norms should exist, which usually is not the case. Thus, children’s test scores are
calculated on the basis of the majority group, which might not be representative for the tested
child.
One test that tries to limit bias inflicted by language is the nonverbal child intelligence test
SON-R 5.5-17. This test, which originally is intended for the assessment of hearing impaired
children, neither includes a verbal scale, nor is dependent on verbal instructions. Due to its nonverbal character the test is a suitable instrument for the use with non-native speakers, like
immigrant children. Moreover, the SON-R 5.5-17 focuses on the needs of children who are
difficult to test. The SON provides more accurate test results for children who have had fewer
opportunities to acquire knowledge and skills to perform well in a test situation, e.g. children with
a lower social-economic background, children from ethnic minorities and children with learning
problems (Tellegen & Laros, 2005). One of these special characteristics of the SON-R 5.5-17 is
that the instructor provides feedback to the tested child, for each item the instructor tells whether
the answer was right or wrong. However, when giving feedback no further explanation is given to
the child, this is important to not influence the test results directly, but rather give the child the
opportunity to use its ability to reflect on the answer. By receiving feedback, the subject can learn
1
In the present study, we concentrate on the group of Roma. However, in studies and papers we used as
resources, Roma often were examined together with other groups, like Sinti, Travellers or a more general
grouping like Gypsies. When referring to this literature we use the terminology as it is handled in there.
3
from its faults and gets the opportunity to change it’s problem solving strategy. This is in line with
Sternberg’s (Sternberg, 1999) idea of ‘dynamic’ testing, where developed as well as developing
abilities are measured. Next to this, in case the child did not understand the instructions right,
feedback gives the opportunity to adjust. Feedback as part of the tests is also handled and
recommended by Naglierie and colleagues (2005). A second characteristic of the SON-R 5.5-17
that improves test administration and reliability of the test is given by the adaptive test procedure
of the SON. By restricting the number of too easy and too difficult items, motivation loss and
frustration in the tested child is prevented. For this reason, each subtests is divided into two or
three parallel series, which each consists of nine to eleven items (dependent on the subtest),
which increase relatively fast in their difficulty. If the tested child has given two wrong answers,
one stops with the ongoing series and starts over with the next series, which again starts with
easier items. This discontinuation rule avoids testing needlessly many items that are too difficult
for the child, hence motivation loss is prevented and the duration of the test is shortened. A
second rule that has to be kept for this aim, the so called starting rule, assures that too easy
items are not administered. When starting with the second and third series, the instructor has to
skip the items that most probably are too easy for the child. The decision on how many items to
skip is based on the number of correctly answered items in the previous series.
Nevertheless, for this non-verbal intelligence test, SON-R 5.5-17, differences in mean
score between the majority and immigrant groups still exist, even though to a lesser extent than in
traditional tests (Snijders, Tellegen, & Laros, 1989). Hence, it can not be presumed that the test is
totally free from culturally based elements. The question remains how far the tests assures fair
assessment of Roma children. This leads us to the research question. The objective of our study
is to explore to what extent the SON-R 5.5-17 gives a valid estimate of intelligence for the specific
minority group of Roma children. To reach this aim, the present study is designed by the following
sub questions:
1.
How do Roma children score on the SON-R 5.5-17?
a. To what extent do the test results of Roma children from Amsterdam,
Bratislava, Kosice and from adoption families differ from each other?
b. To what extent do the results of Roma children vary on the four
subtests?
2.
Is there a relationship between the indication of cognitive capacities given by the SONR 5.5-17 test results and the estimation of capacities given by the teacher of the child?
3.
Is it probable that the specific situation of Roma children influences their school and
test performance in a negative way?
a. Which problems do exist in the education of Roma?
b. To what extent do these problems affect school and test performance of Roma
children?
These questions will be studied by the use of an explorative research, in which test scores and
facts about school career of Roma children in Amsterdam, Bratislava and Kosice are analyzed.
4
METHOD
Sample
For the present study 30 primary school children with a Roma background were tested.
The sample consists of four different groups: (1) Roma children living in Amsterdam, (2) Roma
children living in Bratislava, (3) Roma children from Kosice and finally, (4) Roma children raised
by foster or adoptive parents in and around Kosice. In the following a short description of these
four groups will be given.
Amsterdam
Amsterdam is the capital city of the Netherlands with approx. 740.000 inhabitants. The
Amsterdam sample consisted of ten children; five girls and five boys. The age of the tested
children varied between six years and eleven months and twelve years and eight months(M = 9
years and 7 month, SD = 22.5 month). All but one child visited elementary school; group two till
group seven of primary Dutch education 2. One child followed a special route in a so called ‘tideover class’ (schakelklas). This is a class that tides over between primary and secondary school,
and allows the child to attend further education at the primary school for one more year, without
having to switch to secondary school. The school which provided the tested children had 286
pupils in 2004/2005 of which 31 (10.8 %) were Roma. The group of Roma the pupils are part of,
came to the Netherlands in the 1970’s, and settle in the Amsterdam region in the 1980’s.
Bratislava
In Bratislava, the capital of Slovakia with approx. 450 000 citizens, the research group
contained also ten Roma children. Six of them were boys. The youngest child was nine years old,
the oldest 11 years and nine months(M = 10 years and 4 month, SD = 11.2 month). All children
visited class five or six 3 of a primary school in town. The percentage of Roma pupils there is
unknown.
Kosice
Kosice is the second largest city of Slovakia, situated in the eastern part of the country.
The Roma population in this region is considerably higher, not only compared to Bratislava but
also to the national average. In 2001, 1.7% of the Slovak citizens were Roma. Bratislava has
about 0.1% Roma citizens, whereas Kosice has 5.0% (Statistical Office of the Slovakian
Republic). In Kosice five Children had done the SON-R 5.5-17, of which three Roma girls and two
Roma boys. The minimum age was ten years and two month, the maximum age eleven years (M
= 10 years and 7 month, SD = 4 month). All children visited the primary school in the district Lunik
Devät (Lunik 9), an area mainly inhibited by Roma. The school teaches about 100 children, of
which 95% are Roma.
Adopted children
The fourth research group counted also five Roma children, three girls and two boys.
These children live in non-Roma families in and around Kosice. The children visited class three to
seven of different schools. The length of stay in their foster or adoptive families varied profoundly
between three years to seven years and three months (M = 57 months, SD = 18.9 months). The
mean age of the children amounts nine years and three month, with a minimum of seven years
and eleven months and a maximum of eleven years (SD = 14.7 month).
2
The Dutch education system consists of eight years of primary school, group one to eight, followed by
secondary school. Children start primary school at the age of four and usually step over to secondary school
at the age of eleven or twelve.
3
In Slovakia children start school at the age of six. Class one in Slovakia is comparable with group 3 of the
primary school in the Netherlands. Therefore, class five and six in Slovakia are respectively comparable to
group seven and eight in the Netherlands.
5
Instruments
SON-R 5.5-17
This research aims to study the usability of the SON-R 5.5-17 as an accurate assessment
instrument for Roma children. The Snijders-Oomen non-verbal intelligence scale is originally
constructed in 1943 for the assessment of deaf children. In the present study, the most recent
test version for older children is used, the SON-R 5.5-17 (Snijders et al., 1989). Due to limited
capacities, it was not possible to take the whole test, four of the seven subtests where used:
Categories, Analogies, Mosaics, and Patterns. Short versions of the SON-R 5.5-17 have been
used before and the selection of these four subtests does not seem to have any negative
consequences for the validity and reliability of the test score. See for the results of a slightly
different short version of the SON Tellegen & Laros (2003). The selection of the four subtests
used by us is in line with the forthcoming revised version of the SON, the SON-I, which will
consist of these four subtests (Tellegen & Laros, 2005).
The subtests Categories and Analogies are designed to measure abstract reasoning. In
the Categories subtest, the subject is shown three drawings of objects or situations that have an
underlying concept in common, such as ‘fruits’ or ‘art’. Out of five given alternatives the subject
has to choose two pictures that depict the same concept as the first three given pictures. The
subtests consists of three series with nine items each. The Analogies items consist of a geometric
figure A that is changed into another figure B. The subject hast to discover the principle behind
the transformation and has to apply this principle to figure C. The subject can choose the right
figure D from five given alternatives. The two Analogies series exist of ten items each. The
subtests Mosaics and Patterns are operationalisations of special reasoning. Mosaics items are
puzzles. Here the subject has to copy a given pattern with nine red and white squares, with six
different kinds of printing. The two series of the Mosaics subtest consists of nine items each. For
the subtest Patterns, the subject has to complete an interrupted view of a pattern of one or two
lines, in such a way that the pattern continues consistently. For these tasks the subject uses a
pencil. Patterns consist of three series with eleven items each.
In 1990, the COTAN, a commission of the Dutch psychology association (NIP)
responsible for test review, evaluated the SON-R 5.5-17 as ‘good’ (the highest of the three
possible evaluations: ‘insufficient’, ‘sufficient’ and ‘good’) on all seven criteria, which are: 1. Test
construction, 2. Quality of test materials, 3. Quality of the manual, 4. Norms, 5. Reliability, 6.
Construct validity, 7. Criterion validity (Evers et al., 2000). The calculation of the test score occurs
on the basis of Dutch norms and is accomplished with the appending Windows computer
program, version 1.3 (see: www.testresearch.com). Next to the standard IQ-scores the norm
scores on the four subtests were calculated. All scores have a mean score of 100 and a standard
deviation of 15 in the norm group. Additionally, reference ages are given for each subject. These
ages represent the age of the subject at which it would get an IQ-score of 100 on the basis of its
raw score.
Interviews
The aim of interviewing teachers of the tested children was to receive information about
the children’s (educational) background, learning progress and performance at school. In
Slovakia, the interviews mainly yielded information about the performance of the children at
school. In Amsterdam, further information on special features and problems in Roma education
based on the teachers experiences with Roma pupils and their parents were obtained. The
analysis of interview data will be conducted in two manners, in a quantitative and a qualitative
way.
The quantitative data consist of an evaluation of the children abilities by the teacher.
These data offer a comparative measure of the child’s cognitive abilities in addition to the test
scores. The way of measurement however differs for the two countries. In Amsterdam the Roma
pupils are given a content of the curriculum that fits to their personal level of learning, regardless
of the group level of the class they are in. For example, a child that attends school at group four
might receive subjects taught according to group two. This way they are surrounded by children
of their age, however they are not over-demanded by the content of the lesson. On the basis of
the interview we know for each tested child of the Amsterdam research group on which level it is
6
taught. We transferred this information to an estimated cognitive age, the age that, on regular
school attendance, is appropriate for that group level (Table 1). For example, a tested child that,
according to its teacher, needs to be taught on the level of group two has an estimated cognitive
age of five years. At the end, the relationship between the cognitive age measure on the basis of
teacher evaluation with the age estimation of the basis of the SON-R 5.5-17 score will be
analyzed. To do so, the difference in score (in month) between the estimated cognitive age by the
teacher and the biological age of the child, as well as the difference in score (in month) between
the reference age on the basis of the SON-R 5.5-17 and the biological age of the child are
calculated and compared.
Table 1: The quantification of competence estimation of Amsterdam Roma children by their
teachers
Referenced group level*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Comparable age**
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
* performance level of the child estimated by the group level the child is thought in.
** age related to the performance level.
8
11
At the Slovakian schools an individual adjustment of the subjects taught on the child, as it
is done at the Amsterdam school, is not common. Therefore, we have a different type of
quantitative measure based on the interviews. For the children tested in Slovakia estimations of
the mean marks the child receives at school are given. These marks give a good indication of the
performance level of the child. The school mark system in Slovakia goes from one to five, in
which one is the best mark and five the lowest. Due to the average school marks, it is possible to
compare the evaluation of abilities based on the test with the estimation of abilities based on the
teachers evaluation. Therefore, the correlation of the marks with the IQ score will be collected.
For the qualitative data analysis of the interviews, the experiences of the teachers with
their Roma pupils were organized by subject. Based on this inventory, we may generate possible
causes for noticeable test scores and causes for probable discrepancies between test results and
evaluation by the teachers.
Procedure
For the test administration, the child was taken out of its lesson, to individually take the
IQ-test in a different room. The adopted children where tested after school. In Amsterdam the test
was taken by a psychology student from the University of Groningen, in Slovakia graduated
psychologists were responsible for obtaining the data. Before the actual test administration,
personal details, such as date of birth, sex and test date where noted. The test administration
itself was conducted following the standard manner described in the test manual (Snijders et al.,
1989). The duration of the test administration varied between 30 and 60 minutes. The subjects
were selected as random as possible. For the Amsterdam data, a list with the enrolled Roma
children existed. During six weeks as many of these children as possible were tested. Due to high
absenteeism, the presence of children determined who was tested and who was not. In Slovakia,
the test administration took place over two days, the subjects were selected by the teachers, as
randomly as possible. However, we cannot guarantee a purely random selection, as teachers
might unconsciously have chosen pupils with better performance, to give a good impression of
their pupils. The group with adopted children was randomly selected during one meeting of a
monthly group gathering for adoption and foster parents of Roma children and the children
themselves. After the test administration, the teacher of the subject was interviewed individually
(in one case two teachers were surveyed together) by the test administrator. The character of the
interviews held in Amsterdam was semi-structured (May, 2001). Survey topics were given by an
interview scheme designed in advance, however, the order of the questions was administered
flexible, whereby the interviews got an open character to highlight many as possible experiences
of the teachers in Roma education. For a detailed analysis of the interview data the surveys were
recorded and transcribed. The duration of the interviews varied between ten and thirty minutes,
depending on the number of tested Roma pupils of the involved teacher. Next to the five teachers
7
interviewed in Amsterdam, the headmaster of the Amsterdam primary school was questioned as
well, as were two staff members of het abc, an expertise centre for education in Amsterdam, who
had experiences in testing Roma children.
The interviews in Slovakia were less detailed. In short conversations, the teacher of the
tested children, one in Bratislava and one in Kosice, respectively parents of the adopted children,
were asked to give an impression of the performance of the pupils, which was noted as an
estimation of mean grades the children had received at school. For the interviews in Slovakia,
auditory recording was not possible.
8
RESULTS
The objective of the present study was to explore to what extent the SON-R 5.5-17 gives
a valid estimate of intelligence for Roma children. To answer this question a number of analyses
were carried out. In the following we will present the results according to the three subquestions,
starting with the scores on the SON-R 5.5-17 and a comparison of the subtests and of the four
research groups. Secondly, the indication of capacities of the children given by the test will be
compared with the estimation of the children’s abilities made by teachers. Finally, the qualitative
results of the interviews will be pointed out, to answer subquestion 3.
Test scores on the SON-R 5.5-17
The mean score of the thirty tested Roma children was 76.8 points. The group with the
adopted children scored by far highest, with a 91.6 point average. The Amsterdam and the
Bratislava children follow with mean scores of respectively 77.9 and 74.0 IQ points. The Roma
children from Kosice achieved the lowest average scores with a mean of 65.2 IQ points. All four
groups presented the highest results on the subtest Categories, with a mean for the whole group
of 87.6. The other three subtest follow in the order Analogies (76.7), Patterns (75.4) and Mosaics
(75.3), however differences between these three sub parts are minimal. All researched groups,
except the children from Kosice, scored highest on the subtest Categories. For the other subtests
we cannot find such a coherent outcome. The order of the mean scores and the dimension of
differences between the subtests varied per research group (see Table 2).
Table 2: Overview of test results on the SON-R 5.5-17
Research group
1
2
3
4
Total
Group 1:
Group 2:
Group 3:
Group 4:
Standard IQ
Categories
Mosaics
N
m
sd
m
sd
m
sd
10
77.9
10.3
94.0
12.8
75.5
10.5
10
74.0
12.3
83.7
14.7
72.9
17.0
5
65.2
11.3
67.8
16.2
71.6
11.4
5
91.6
15.9
102.4
20.1
83.6
9.5
30
76.8
14.0
87.6
18.3
75.3
13.1
Roma children from Amsterdam
Roma children from Bratislava
Roma children from Kosice
Roma children from Kosice adopted by non-Roma
Patterns
m
sd
71.0
12.6
76.8
11.4
67.4
11.4
89.6
19.3
75.4
14.6
Analogies
m
sd
80.0
16.1
71.5
10.0
63.6
14.4
93.6
16.2
76.7
16.4
Differences between the four research groups
To answer subquestion 1a, concerning the differences in mean IQ score between the
four research groups an ANOVA is conducted. The analysis revealed a significant main effect (F
(3, 29) = 4.2, p < .05). Primarily, the mean IQ score of the group with adopted Roma children
differed from the other groups. Furthermore, the difference between the Amsterdam group and
the group from Kosice differs marginally from zero. Table 3 presents an overview of the ANOVA
results.
Table 3: Mean score differences between the research groups, analyzed by ANOVA
Researchgroup (I) researchgroup (J)
Amsterdam - Bratislava
Amsterdam - Kosice
Amsterdam - Adopted children
Bratislava - Kosice
Bratislava - Adopted children
Kosice - Adopted children
Mean scores
differences (I-J)
3.9
12.7
-13.7
8.8
-17.6
-26.4
† = p < .10, * = p < .05, ** = p < .01
std. error
5.43
6.65
6.65
6.65
6.65
7.67
p
.479
.067†
.049*
.197
.014*
.002**
9
Differences between the four subtests
Above the means for the test and per subtest are presented. To examine to what extent
the subtest mean scores differ from each other a pair t-test is conducted. For this, the data of the
four research groups are taken together. The analysis obtains a significant difference between
the mean score on Categories and each other part of the test (see Table 4). The norm scores on
Categories are higher than on every other subtest. The differences between the other subtests
revealed not significant.
Table 4: Comparison of the four subtests (analyzed with paired t-test, significant level α =.05, N =
30)
Pair
Categories-Mosaics
Categories- Patterns
Categories-Analogies
Mosaics -Patterns
Analogies- Mosaics
Analogies- Patterns
*** = p < .001
Mean score
differences
12.27
12.17
10.90
-.10
1.37
1.03
t
4.10
4.18
4.37
-.04
.55
.52
p (2-sided)
.000***
.000***
.000***
.966
.586
.608
The relationship between SON-R 5.5-17 results and evaluation of capacities by teachers
To answer subquestion two about the relationship between the capacity indication of the
SON-R 5.5-17 and the teachers evaluation of cognitive capacities of the children, a correlation
analysis is conducted. For the Amsterdam dataset we therefore used the reference age given by
the SON-R 5.5-17 test results and an estimation of cognitive age on the basis of the teachers
evaluation. For the calculation of correlations we used the difference scores of the biological age
of the children and the cognitive age indication by the tests respectively the teacher. For the
difference score of biological age and reference age of the SON-R 5.5-17 the mean conducted
-29,1 months(SD = 17.87). The mean differencescore between biological age and estimated
cognitive age of the teachers is -34.8 months(SD = 18.56 month). The differences between the
biological age and the cognitive age indication of the test correlated significant and strongly
positive with the indication by the teachers (r =. 95, p < .01.). A scatterplot (Figure 1) visualizes
this relationship.
For the Slovakian data the relationship between estimated cognitive capacities by the
SON-R 5.5-17 and the estimation by teachers is calculated in a different way. Here a correlation
analysis of the standard IQ-score on the basis of the test with the estimated mean school grade
of the children is conducted. The data showed that the IQ score and the mean school grade
correlate significant and in a positive direction (r = .59, p < .01). For the different subtests
correlations with the school grade vary between .50 and .55, with a significance level of p < .05
(see Table 5 and Figure 2). Regarding the three different research groups studied in Slovakia
obtaining significant correlations is difficult due to the small sample sizes. Only for the data from
Bratislava with a sample of ten children this was possible. The analysis revealed a significant
positive correlation between IQ score and school grade of r =.68 with a significant level of p < .05.
Concerning the subtests in the Bratislava group significant positive correlations between IQ score
and school grade are found for Categories (r = .64; p<.05) and for Mosaics (r = .64; p < .05.).
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
Reference age by the teacher
Figure 1: The relationship of the differences in cognitive age and biological age in month, indicated by the
SON-R 5.5-17 and by the teachers (Amsterdam group, N = 10)
Table 5: The correlations of standard IQ-scores respectively the subtest scores and the school
grades (Slovakia group, N = 20)
m
sd
School grade
3.2
Standard IQ score
76.2
Categories
84.4
Mosaics
75.3
Patterns
77.7
Analogies
75.1
* = p < .05, ** = p < .01
1.1
15.7
20.0
14.4
15.3
16.7
Correlation
with school
grade
.59**
.51*
.51*
.55*
.50*
120
110
100
90
Standard IQ score
80
70
60
50
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Avarage marks at school (recoded)
Figure 2: The relationship between standard IQ-score and the average school grade (Slovakia group, N =
20).
11
Qualitative data
The interviews with teachers in Amsterdam provided a number of topics which play a
specific role in Roma education or are noticeable for the tested children. In the following the
interview data will be presented structured by these six topics, which are: absenteeism, early drop
out, language difficulties, discrepancy in abilities, motivation and concentration and family
situation. There is no such detailed data obtained for the situation in Slovakia, however we add
some information deriving from conversation with experts. Additionally, experiences of the test
administrators are used.
Absenteeism
A problematic issues around Roma education mentioned most often and as one of the
first is their high absenteeism rate. Following the Amsterdam interview data, five of the ten tested
children have extreme high absenteeism rates, for three children attendance seems reasonably,
however only two children visit school regularly. The words of one teacher exemplify the meaning
of extreme high absenteeism: “One week they stay away, than probably they come one day and
then again they stay home for two weeks and than they again come for one day.” This attendance
behavior is also notice by the test administrator, which resulted in a long duration of test
administration, because at some days none of the children who should be tested were present at
school. Reasons teachers mention for the absenteeism are varying from minor ailments like
having a blain, or back pain or rain and no bus tickets that keeps people from leaving the house.
Another cause are family affairs or celebrations, which traditionally play an important role for
Roma. However the headmaster accentuates that in case of not coming, they mostly phone to
sign of. In that way they are good integrated and socializes into Dutch norms and rules, she said.
On the question if the motivation for absenteeism underlies in the children or in the parents, the
headmaster answers that usually, especially when the child is younger than ten, it is the parents
decision.
In Kosice the effect of absenteeism are different than in Amsterdam. Here, the teacher of
the school, which mainly is visited by Roma, waits with starting the lessons till everybody is
present. Due to the central location of the school in the area, it is possible to pick up the children
at home in case they do not come independently.
Early drop out
Next to absenteeism, early drop out from school forms a difficulty in Roma education,
mentioned during the interviews. Especially the transition from primary to secondary school forms
a turning point at which drop out is high. By now, visiting primary school is more or less a matter
of course for the Roma group in Amsterdam, however, regarding secondary school, attendance is
not taken for granted in that group, as a teachers puts on record. Causes are seen in a number of
facts. One reason for this aversion is the location of the school mentioned by het abc during a
documentary about the relevant school (Netwerk, 18th July 2005). The Roma in Amsterdam seem
to attach importance on schools in their direct environment. Therefore, dependency on public
transport forms an obstacle for school attendance. Another reason that derives from the
mentioned documentary and that is emphasized by the interviewed headmaster as well, is the
tradition of young marriage age in Roma culture. For Roma it is common to marry at the age of 13
or 14. Searching for a future husband or wife and being married is reason enough to leave school
(Netwerk, 18th July 2005).
The interviews give evidence of hope and trust in the fact that time will bring the needed
changes in Roma attitude regarding (regular) school attendance, secondary school and early
marriage. This will be reached due to changes from generation to generation, as a teacher states:
“What daughters are not allowed to, their daughters maybe will be allowed to”.
Language barriers
A third topic is language difficulties of Roma children concerning the official language of
their home countries. Most of all, Romani is their native language, Dutch is a second language
they do not learn until starting school. Learning this second language seems to be tough and it
arrests the learning progress, especially in young pupils. During the interviews it is brought up
that the three youngest pupils of the Amsterdam sample (age six to eight) have a huge lack of
12
mastery of the Dutch and no idea of grammar. This language deficit leads to even bigger learning
deficits. As a consequence, all the three youngest pupils had to repeat a class. Though,
according to the teachers experiences that seems to bring advancement. Language is an
important issue for the older pupils as well. During the interviews language difficulties are
mentioned for five of the seven pupils. Only for two of the ten tested children in Amsterdam
language difficulties are not mentioned explicitly. A teachers emphasizes that most of the content
of the curriculum is processed in written language, either by reading or by writing, which forms a
problem. Regarding three pupils visiting group five (comparable to class three) the following is
said: “They can tell about things, orally they join in the lessons. They are interested. However,
expressing themselves in words, the written expression is not working at all. As well reading texts
is just to difficult for them to do on their own.”
Concerning the tested Roma children from Bratislava, language barriers are a less bigger
problem. It is known that they usually grow up speaking the official language of their country,
Slovak.
Discrepancy in abilities
Another noticeable point that was brought up during the interviews is the discrepancy
between the low test results and the weak school performance on the one hand, with a selfreliance and handiness the Roma children show in everyday life tasks. This difference in abilities
is not as big for all the tested children, however, especially in one girl which perplexes her teacher.
During school days the girl likes helping with things, the headmaster tells: “…housekeeping, like
brewing coffee, copying, taking the phone she does like the best.” Do describe this ability, the
headmasters uses the term streetwise in this context. On the contrary, her test results are
extremely low, with 71 IQ points, also in the subjects taught, in reading and in writing she
performs far below the expected level for her biological age. The teacher adds: “Well, she herself
feels that there is more in her than she can show on the paper, that of course annoys her.”
Motivation and concentration
Further, the interview data and the experiences with test administration reveal information
about the motivation and concentration of the Roma children at school. About seven of the ten
tested pupils, teachers explicitly mentioned that they are motivated and concentrated during the
lessons. The test administrator affirms this impression. Regarding their motivation, pupils
predominantly enjoyed doing the test and were motivated to perform well on it. Pressure, like the
time limit on the Mosaic and Pattern items, and difficult items had different effect on the children.
According to the administrators impression, four of the ten pupils felt positively challenged and
got ambitious by that. Reactions like “it is fun” or “I did my very best” and proud smiles after
receiving positive feedback prove that. However two children clearly showed that high demands
lower their motivation and that they have difficulties trying to succeed. Proclaiming “I can’t do this,
it’s to difficult” before trying to solve the problem is an example for this behavior. Concerning their
concentration, it seemed that four of the ten were obviously strongly attentive. They showed little
eye contact when solving the test items and some were thinking out loud. Only the two oldest
pupils showed little concentration, which was evident by questions like, “How much longer does it
take, I am hungry?”.
Family situation
According to the interviews with teachers, many of their Roma pupils do life in unstable
family situations. Though, they do not have clear information about this for every child. It seems
that grandparents or aunts are looking after three of the tested children. At one child’s family
there are serious conflicts between the two parents. Additionally parent’s stay away for long
periods due to family celebration or conflicts abroad.
Concerning the contact with parents or with other carers of the children the given
information is contrary. Four of the five interviewed teachers note that they have very little or no
contact with the parents of their Roma pupils. Furthermore teachers bring up that they do not
attend parent’s evenings regularly or not at all and are difficult to reach. The headmaster on the
other hand speaks out in a positive way about the contact with Roma parents. She says: “The
13
contact and communication exists, I can not say that they do not want to. There is contact and
they bring and pick up their children.”
Recapitulatory, on the basis of the interviews held in Amsterdam we can state that
predominantly the Roma pupils in Amsterdam are motivated and bring up the needed
concentration to follow the lessons. An important fact is the so called streetwiseness of some of
the children, their good ability to cope with everyday challenges and to solve everyday tasks
independently, which is in contrast to their low abilities on test and at the lessons. Factors that
distract a smooth processing education of these pupils is mainly high absenteeism of most of the
children. Due to this the learning matter cannot develop further and improvement is slowed down.
Furthermore, early drop out and difficult transfer to secondary schools arrests Roma pupils from
receiving a high school qualification. Moreover, language deficits keep Roma pupils from
following lessons at an equivalent level compared to their non-Roma contemporaries. Besides,
unstable contact between the school and parents is an additional aspect that contributes to the
difficult situation in Roma education.
14
DISCUSSION
The goal of the present study was to explore to what extent the SON-R 5.5-17 is an
accurate assessment instrument for Roma children. To reach this goal three research questions
were formulated. Below, the result for each of the questions will be discussed and
recommendations for further research and for the use of the SON test will be given. Additionally,
limitations of the study will be noted, followed by a conclusion.
Differences of the results on the SON-R 5.5-17 between the research groups
In research question one about how Roma children score on the SON-R 5.5-17, we first asked to
what extent the test results of the four studied groups do differ. Most noticeable of the scores on
the de SON-R 5.5-17 of the tested Roma children are the very low average results on the test.
The mean score of the children is lower than 80 IQ points, the children from Kosice have the
lowest average with about 65 IQ points, whereas the adopted children score highest with a mean
IQ score higher than 91 points average. The obvious difference between the mean score of the
adopted and the non-adopted Roma children is in line with earlier findings of a meta analysis
made by IJzendoorn, Juffer en Klein Poelhuis (2005). Their results show that the IQ score and
school success of adopted children is significantly higher than that of their biological siblings who
are not adopted. On the basis of our study it is not possible to draw conclusions about a causal
relationship between adoption and the higher test scores of the adopted respondents compared
to the non-adopted respondents. However, we want to mention possible reasons for the
differences in IQ scores. The data of the normation study for the SON-R 5.5-17 show that
children form social economically disadvanced families on average have a lower test score than
children from families with higher social economic status (Snijders et al., 1989). Due to low
education and their disadvantaged position on the labor marked most of the Roma-families have
a low SES, whereas adoption families score above the mean on SES (Maughan, Collishaw, &
Pickles, 1998). This might account for the differences in IQ scores of the tested children.
In the literature another probable factor for the difference in IQ score between adopted
and non-adopted children is emphasized. Factors such as parental attitudes and parent-child
interaction patterns seem to explain a substantial proportion of variance in intellectual
performance (Suzuki & Valencia, 1997). Following Martinez (2000) and Mackintosh (1998), the
attitude of parents towards school, education and performance even seems to be a better
predictor of the IQ of children than SES. Thus, what parents do, is a stronger predictor of
children’s intellectual performance than what they are, as Suzuki & Valencia say. IJzendoorn et al.
(2005) conclude that adopted children do profit by the stimulative environment of their adoption
family in educational terms. In the present study, we did not explicitly measure attitude towards
school of the Roma pupils and their parents. Yet, results of the interviews with teachers of Roma
pupils in Amsterdam demonstrate that the pupils show high absenteeism and drop out. This low
commitment towards school and education might be read as a sign of a negative attitude of the
Roma pupils and parents towards school. Thus, the difference in IQ scores between the adopted
Roma children and the non-adopted children might be influenced by the enhanced stimulation of
the adopted children. From the above discussion, it sounds like a natural step to further research
the role of attitude for intelligence and stimulation of intelligence in children.
Next to differences between the adopted and the non-adopted Roma children, the test
scores of the children from Kosice are significantly lower than the tests scores of the Amsterdam
pupils. The reasons just mentioned explaining the differences between adopted and non-adopted
children, i.e. SES and stimulation and attitude transmitted by parents might also account for the
differences in IQ score between the tested group from Kosice and Amsterdam. The children
tested in Kosice live under very poor conditions compared to the children living in Amsterdam.
Furthermore, the Roma from Kosice live quite secluded from the non-Roma citizens in that area.
The children from Kosice are educated at a school with about 95% Roma pupils, while in
Amsterdam the percentage of Roma students is about 11%. Due to this strong segregation, the
pupils from Kosice might profit less from influences outside their own community, which might
have a stimulating effect on attitude towards schooling, and on knowledge about norms and
values needed at the educational institute.
15
Differences between the scores on the subtests of the SON-R 5.5-17
In research question one, about how Roma children score on the SON-R 5.5-17 we
secondly asked to what extent the test results of the Roma children differed on the four subtests.
The data show a significant difference between the mean score on the subtest Categories and all
other three subtests. In all research groups, except the group from Kosice, Categories was the
subtest with the highest norm score of al four subtests. It is noticeable that, compared to the other
subtests, the items of Categories ask for less abstract insight. The objects shown on the pictures
are common every day life objects, unlike e.g. the abstract geometric figures used in Analogies.
The tested children are probably more familiar with these pictures, than with more abstract tasks.
Additionally, as one of the interviewed teachers from Amsterdam mentioned, the pupils in
Amsterdam practice with naming and ordering pictures in the first years of school. However,
opportunities to ‘practice’ abstract reasoning and spatial insight tasks, i.e. making puzzles,
drawing, and playing with building blocks, are missing for many Roma children, as we do expect
following experiences of the test administrators in Slovakia, who worked with Roma people
regularly. She mentioned that some Roma pupils do not know how to hold a pencil when they first
come to school. The question arises to what extent the higher score on the subtest Categories
are explained by past experiences and practice of the tested pupils and therefore, to what extent
the skills assessed in the cognitive capacity tests are indeed trainable.
To what extent does the IQ test measure knowledge or the intellectual ability of people to
learn? Referring to Kaufman (1990), Suzuki and Valencia (1997) note that the IQ test is in many
ways a measure of past learning. Fagan and Holland (2002; 2007) claim that intelligence reflects
information processing ability, whereas the IQ score should be seen as a measure of how much a
person knows compared to people of the same age. This knowledge is gained by information
processing. Thus, environmental causes, like access to information, impact IQ scores as Fagan
and Holland state further. This access to information is driven by culture. In the light of Fagan’s
and Suzuki’s statements, it indeed seems plausible that the discrepancies between the score on
the subtest Categories and the other, more abstract parts of the test can be explained by past
experiences and knowledge of the tested children, which they do have about the items of
Categories, rather than for the other parts of the SON. Hence, it seems that to some extent
learned knowledge impacts the results on the SON-R 5.5-17. However, on the basis of the results
we are not allowed to draw conclusions about the extent to which the intellectual ability of the
Roma children to learn, is assessed with this instrument. Future research needs to be done to
discover the specific role of knowledge and training for intelligence and its assessment via IQ
tests. Additionally, the deficit of knowledge in minority groups, in particular for Roma, should be
explored. Knowing where deficits exactly are, helps to find out were the pupils need special
training in order to catch op with their majority class mates.
Relationship between estimation of cognitive capacities given by the SON-R 5.5-17 and given by
the teachers
The comparison between the test scores on the SON-R 5.5-17 and the indication of the
cognitive capacities of the children by their teachers points to a positive, and for the Amsterdam
data even very strong, relationship between the two kinds of evaluations. The results let us
assume that the assessment of the children’s capacities by the test is in accordance with their
school performance. These outcomes are in line with earlier findings on the relationship between
IQ-scores and school success. Studies show that IQ scores strongly correlate with school
performance and received educational level (Dijk & Tellegen, 2004; Brody, 1997). Thus, at the
first sight, the SON-R 5.5-17 seems a good indicator of cognitive capacities for Roma children.
However, the qualitative data obtained from the interviews held for this study point to a
discrepancy between the school performance of the Roma children and their so called
streetwiseness, their good ability to cope with real life challenges independently. These
contradictive results let us return to the question of to what extent IQ scores, and in particular the
SON-R 5.5-17 gives an accurate evaluation of the intellectual ability of (Roma) children.
In the previous section we discussed the role knowledge and ability play in IQ scores.
Concluding that section we assumed that there is a knowledge part in IQ-test scores. However, it
is still unclear to what extent the cognitive ability of children is presented in the test scores. The
results of the present study suggest that the tested Roma children do have a greater potential to
16
cope with real-life problems than would be expected purely on the basis of the test results. It
seems that next to their, rather poor, ability for abstract and analytic insight, which is learned and
asked at school, they have a high practical ability which let them cope well with real life problems.
Thus, to what extent do intelligence tests, in particular the SON-R 5.5-17, take those different
kinds of ability into account? As Grigorenko and Sternberg (2001) illustrate, the ability concept
behind intelligence is not clearly explored. To come closer to an explanation of intelligence many
intelligence theorists distinguish different types of intelligence. One of these differentiations is
presented in the Triarchic Theory of Intelligence by Sternberg (see, e.g. Sternberg, 1985; 1999;
Sternberg, Wagner, Williams, & Horvath, 1995), which underlines the disparity between more
analytic versus more practical ability, like we found in the present study. The Triarchic Theory of
Intelligence aims to explain intelligence in terms of three aspects: analytical ability, creative ability
and practical ability. The study by Grigorenko and Sternberg (2001) shows that, compared to
analytical and creative intelligence, a measure of practical intelligence is the best predictor of
adaptive real world functioning. Our study does not allow us to draw any conclusion on this
question, but we can carefully hypothesize that the test scores of the SON-R 5.5-17 give a good
indication of the analytical ability for abstract insight, whereas the test results do not regard the
practical ability of the children. Further research needs to specify what exactly can be understood
of analytical and practical ability and its relations to traditional IQ test scores, in particular for the
SON-R 5.5-17.
The specific situation of Roma pupils and their education
The interviews held with teachers of the tested Roma pupils in Amsterdam point out a
number of conspicuous topics in Roma education, i.e. absenteeism, early drop out, language
difficulties, discrepancy in abilities, motivation and concentration and family situation. The
information of the interviews demonstrate a few positive actualities of Roma education. The
surveys with the teachers of the tested pupils from Amsterdam exemplify that for the most part
the pupils are motivated and concentrated to follow the lessons and execute the tasks given by
teachers. Thus, one important requirement for educational process seems fulfilled. To further
remove educational disadvantages in Roma education, it additionally seems necessary to start
teaching the children as early as possible. In the Netherlands this is the case, as start of school at
the age of four is usual. In Slovakia, school attendance of young children is sought after as well,
by introducing the so called zero-class (Kopcanová, 2005). During this extra year of school,
preliminary to the regular start of primary school, efforts are made to reduce the disadvantages of
Roma children on cognitive and language abilities.
Regardless of these developments, an equal participation in education of Roma
compared to the majority group is not reached yet. The interviews point out issues that represent
and probably promote this situation. These are high absenteeism and early drop out rates from
school, as well as language deficits and unstable contact between the parents of the Roma pupils
and the school. Especially the extremely high absenteeism and the high rate of early drop out
from school of Roma pupils impede the educational process of these pupils. A basis for the lack
of commitment towards school, represented in absence from school, can be explained by the
success belief of school attendance. Following the anthropologist D’Amato, Gibson (2000)
discusses compliance for school of pupils with an immigrant or ethnic minority background, in
terms of structural rationales that guide behavior. Structural rationales for school success can be
seen in the belief that school success leads to desired goals, like a desired job, social status or
prestige in the family or among friends, or, conversely that bad behavior at school or absence
from school induces punishment or status loss. These structural rationales are to some extent
formed by the near environment, like family. Thus, they are partly shaped by culture.
These adequate structural goals might be absent in the Roma pupils. To improve their
situation, Roma children need to experience success as an outcome of education, like a higher
standard of living or less discrimination. But, as long as the Roma do not have reasons to believe
in success, e.g. in occupational or social terms, as results of school attendance their behavior will
be difficult to change. To achieve these first necessary examples of success, good policies and
projects for Roma are needed, as well as time and patience. Additionally, it is necessary to detect
the specific attitudes of Roma towards school and education in further research. Knowing which
17
components of teaching Roma endorse and which they decline, makes it possible to adapt school
in a way Roma might rather accept.
In research question 3b it is asked to what extent do problems in Roma education
affect school and test performance of these children? Absence from school will lead to deficits of
knowledge and ability trained at school. Therefore, according to the discussion above, this deficit
of knowledge might in turn have a negative influence on IQ test results.
Limitations & Conclusion
The present study obviously is not free of shortcomings. First, the small number of
respondents per studied group makes it difficult to draw strong conclusions on the results.
Second, the estimations of intellectual capacities of the pupils by their teacher were measured in
different ways in Slovakia and in the Netherlands. This makes a consistent comparison
impossible. Third, we only conducted qualitative data at the school of the Roma children in the
Netherlands. Therefore, the picture shown by the interviews is not representative for other Roma
communities. Generalization of these issues to communities differing strongly from the Roma
group in Amsterdam especially needs to be done with care. In the light of these limitations, we
want to emphasize the explorative character of this study. Although the results of this study can
not be translated to the whole Roma population, it clearly features issues which have to be taken
into account for the practical application of test assessment of Roma pupils and their education.
Additionally, this work points out topics that need to be further studied.
The present study shows that the test administration does proceed without problems, due
to the motivation and concentration of the children and the special character of the SON-R 5.5-17.
However, Roma children do score extremely low on the SON-R 5.5-17. As a comparison between
test results and assessments by teachers confirms, the test does give a useful indication of the
knowledge and competencies of the children. Thus, for Roma children with low test scores, it can
be assumed that they indeed have a deficit in skills compared to the majority population. However,
conclusions about the cognitive potential and the ability to learn, based on the test scores, need
to be drawn with caution. Due to their generally low social economic status, differences in
experiences and knowledge, the Roma children are disadvantaged in the assessment situation.
This needs to be taken into account when interpreting their test results. These recommendations
give the answer to the main question of this study, i.e. to what extent does the SON-R 5.5-17 give
a valid estimate of intelligence. The SON-R 5.5-17 is useful for the assessment of Roma children;
however, based on the test results, no conclusions can be drawn on the total learning potential of
the children. “The” intelligence cannot be assessed by the test.
18
REFERENCES
Brody, N. (1997). Intelligence, Schooling, and Society. American Psychologist, 52, 1046-1050.
Dijk, H. van, & Tellegen, P.J., (2004). Nio. Nederlands Intelligentietest voor onderwijsniveau. Amsterdam:
Boom Testuitgever.
Evers, A., & Nijenhuis, J. te, (1999). Liever speciale dan traditionele capaciteitentests voor allochtonen? Een
vergelijking. De psycholoog, 6, 250-255.
European Comission (2004). The Situation of Roma in an Enlarged European Union. European Commission
Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs, Unit 3D.
http://www.errc.org/db/00/E0/m000000E0.pdf.
European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC). (2005) Stigmata: Segregated Schooling of Roma in Central and
Eastern Europe, a survey of patterns of segregated education of Roma in Bulgaria, the Czech
Republic, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia. European Roma Rights Centre. Budapest.
http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=1892.
Evers, A., Vliet-Mulder, J.C. van, & Groot, C.J. (2000). Documentatie van Test en Testresearch in Nederland.
Deel 1. Testbeschrijvingen. Van Gorcum.
Fagan, J.F., & Holland, C.R. (2007). Racial Equality in intelligence: Predictions from a theory of intelligence
as processing. Intelligence, 35, 319-334.
Fagan, J.F., & Holland, C.R. (2002). Equal opportunities in racial differences in IQ. Intelligence, 30, 361-387.
Grigorenko, E.L., & Sternberg, R.J. (2001). Analytical, creative, and practical intelligence as predictors of
self- reported adaptive functioning: a case study in Russia. Intelligence, 29, 57-73.
Gibson, M.A. (2000). Situational and Structural Rationales for the School performance of Immigrant Youth.
Three cases. In H. Vermeulen, & J. Perlmann (Eds.), Immigrants, Schooling and Social Mobility.
Does Culture make a difference? Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Hofstee, W.K.B. (1990). Toepasbaarheid van psychologische tests bij allochtonen. De psycholoog,
45, 291-294.
IJzendoorn, M.H. van, Juffer F., & Klein Poelhuis, C.W. (2005). Adoption and Cognitive Development: A
Meta-Analytic Comparison of Adopted and Nonadopted Children’ IQ and School Performance.
Psychological Bulletin, 131, 301-316.
Kaufman, A.S. (1990). Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence. Needham Heights, MA:ally & Bacon.
Kopcanová, D. (2005). Helping children from socially (culturally) disadvantages settings: searching or a
model of cooperation. In D. Kopcanová (Eds.), Quality Education for Children in Socially
disadvantaged Settings. The Research Institute for Child Psychology and Patopsychology &
Education Committee, Slovak Commission for UNESCO, Bratislava.
Mackintosh, N.J. (1998). IQ and human intelligence. Oxford. Blackwell
Martinez, M.E. (2000). Education as the cultivation of intelligence. Mahwah. NJ. Erlbaum.
Maughan, B., Collishaw, S., & Pickles, A. (1998). School achievement and adult qualification among
adoptees: A longitudinal study. Journal for Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines,
39, 669-685.
May, T. (2001). Social research: issues, methods and process. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Naglieri, J.A., Rojahn, J., Matto, H.C., & Aquilino, S.A. (2005). Black-White differences in cognitive
processing: A study of the planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive theory of intelligence.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 146-160.
Netwerk: Zigeunercultuur versus Nederlandse regels, (shown on 18th july 2005, 20.30 uur). Verslaggeving:
Yoka van Eck. Website: http://www.netwerk.tv/index.jsp?p=items&r=netwerk&a=182514.
Reynolds, C.R. (1982). The problem of bias in psychological assessment. In C.R. Reynolds & T.B. Gutkin
(Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (pp. 178-209). New York: Wiley.
Snijders, J.Th., Tellegen, P.J., & Laros, J.A. (1989). Snijders-Oomen Non-verbal intelligence test: SON-R
5,5-17. Manual and research report. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Statistical Office of the Slovakian Republic:
http://www.statistics.sk/webdata/english/census2001/tab/tab3b.htm.
Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Beyond IQ: a triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York, NY: Cambridge Univ.
Press.
Sternberg, R.J. (1999). A Triarchic approach to the understanding and assessment of intelligence in
multicultural populations. Journal of School Psychology, 37, 145-159.
Sternberg, R.J., Wagner, R.K., Williams, W.M., & Horvath, J. (1995). Testing common sense. American
Psychologist, 50, 912-927.
Suzuki, L.A., & Valencia, R.R (1997). Race-Ethnicity and Measured Intelligence. American Psychologist, 52,
1103-1114.
Tellegen, P.J., & Laros, J.A. (2003). De verkorte vorm van de SON-R 5.5-17 Snijders-Oomen Niet-verbale
Intelligentietest. Supplement bij de verantwoording en Handleiding. Website testresearch.nl:
http://www.testresearch.nl/sonro/supplvrkrt.html
Tellegen, P.J., & Laros, J.A. (2005). Fair assessment of children from cultural minorities: A description of the
19
SON-R non-verbal intelligence tests. In D. Kopcanová (Eds.), Quality Education for Children in
Socially disadvantaged Settings. The Research Institute for Child Psychology and Patopsychology
& Education Committee, Slovak Commission for UNESCO, Bratislava.
Timmermans, R., & Hurk, A. van den (2002) Onderwijsdeelname van woonwagen en zigeunerkinderen in de
20e eeuw: Een trendstudie. ’s Hertogenschosch: KPC Groep.
20