HSLS 2009 adoption and biracial data

Edit: A comment by Steve led me to take another look at the data, this time using sample weights, which correct for missing data. Based on the weighted data, the hybrid performance is consistent with a genetic hypothesis but the adoption data is much less so. The departure from prediction is mainly due to the low performance of Whites adopted by Whites; Blacks adopted Whites due little better than Blacks overall. The patterns of differences indicate that the math assessment used is significantly influenced by home environmental factors, which calls into question the use of it as an index of IQ. I included tables with the weighted values below. The Ns are the weight values, not sample size.

Below is my preliminary analysis of the High school Longitudinal study of 2009, which is a nationally representative study of American high school students. All students were give the uniquely designed HSLS math test, which I used as my index of cognitive ability. Both students and parents reported their race, and I used these reports co-jointly as an index of race. Hispanics were excluded from all analyses.

Using the mother/father, biological/adopted variables, I identified 99 traditionally adopted Whites, 8 transracially adopted Whites, 13 traditionally Blacks, and 18 transracially adopted Blacks. As can be seen in the first table, the transracially adopted Whites performed as the traditionally adopted Whites and mutatis mutandis for Blacks. I also identified 5412 Whites with two biological White parents, 474 Blacks with two biological Black parents, and 62 individuals of mixed biological parentage. As can be seen in the first table, the biracial students performed intermediate to the mono-racial ones. The above analysis was restrictive, as individuals were only included if both mother and father data was available and if the parental racial identification matched student racial identification (e.g., both biological parents identify as White, student identified as White). I also looked at the performance of self-identifying Biracials. As can be seen, they perform intermediate to self-identifying monoracial. In all analyses I calculated MIQs using the full sample standard deviation of 10.08.

The second table gives a three way comparison between adopted Black, White, and Asian students. Included also are students with transracial guardians or stepparents.

The following tables include sample weights (Ns are the sample weights not the sample size):

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to HSLS 2009 adoption and biracial data

  1. x says:

    off topic i realise, but what happened to your series on the Australian Aboriginals?

    • Chuck11 says:

      I thought I rapped it up. I determined that Aborigines performed worse in states — or whatever you call them — where they were more Australoid. And that the 1 SD gap was consistent with the Admixture rate in the Aboriginal population, which seems to be over 50%. Then I asked you to do some testing while you were clearing your mind on your walkabout. I guess you didn’t get around to it.

    • Chuck11 says:

      How’s life by the way?

  2. x says:

    lol, sorry i couldnt get round to it, but i dont have enough money to buy cigarettes as incentives for all the sample subjects to take part in the study ;)

    what i meant though was why arent the posts still around? i cant find them. i actually need them right now and the sources in them.

  3. x says:

    i’m not in australia right now as well.

  4. Steve Sailer says:

    Thanks for doing this analysis.

    Is the difference between “White Bio Mom&Dad” and the larger group of “White Student ID” that the former requires the participation of the both parents?

    • Chuck11 says:

      I updated it. Using weights the adoption data is less consistent with a genetic hypothesis. The difference between Blacks and Whites reared by 2 Whites is only 0.2 SD, relative to a Black-White difference of 0.7 SD in the full sample. N is still 19 though. For perspective, the difference between Asians and Whites adopted by Whites is 0.8 SD relative to a White-Asian difference of 0.6 SD in the full sample. The hybrid data is more consistent with a genetic hypothesis on the other hand.

      I’ll have to discuss the weighting issue, in this instance, with someone more statistically minded than myself.

      The total sample was based on over 20,000 students. Which means there is approximately 1 transracially adopted Black per 1000 individuals (as of 1995). You probably don’t want a transracial adoption sample below 10, so if you are interested in more data you could ask inductivist to look at the ECLS-k cohort grade 8. http://nces.ed.gov/ecls/index.asp
      I already perused through the Add health study — the only other one with a large enough sample size; the transracially adopted Black sample wasn’t worth mentioning owing to size, n=1 in the longitudinal follow up.

      Any thoughts on the Asian scores?

    • Chuck11 says:

      Student ID refers to how the student self-identified. Bio mom and dad refers to how the parents identified. A large amount of parental data was missing either completely or for one of the variables used (e.g., biological relatedness or race). Only one parent filled out the forms. The depressing, elevating affect that you’re inquiring about (e.g., why students with 2 bio parents perform above the general population) then is due to the characteristics of parents who send in/don’t send in info –and not to a second parent being present/absent.

  5. Steve Sailer says:

    Thanks. I’ve got a question about what is considered adoption in this database. Is it only pure adoptions where a child is raised by strangers, or does it include cases where a stepfather adopts his wife’s biological child from an earlier relationship? For example, President Gerald Ford was “half-adopted:” he was legally adopted by his mother’s second husband, and only talked to his biological father as an adult.

    • Chuck says:

      I defined “adoption” as having one self reported adoptive mother and one self reported adoptive father. That’s one of the reasons that the N was so small.

  6. Pingback: Color Differences: Corrections and Further Analysis. Part 2 | Human Varieties

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s