Abo Bibliothek: Guest
Digitales Portal Digitale Bibliothek eBooks Zeitschriften Referenzen und Berichte Forschungssammlungen
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering
SJR: 0.468 SNIP: 0.671 CiteScore™: 1.65

ISSN Druckformat: 1072-8325
ISSN Online: 1940-431X

Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering

DOI: 10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2019026894
pages 75-91


Jonathan Taylor
Hunter College Gender Equity Project, 695 Park Avenue, Room 1032E, New York, NY 10065, USA


The use of test scores in school admissions has been a contentious issue for decades. In New York City's elite public high schools, it has been particularly controversial because of disproportionate representation by ethnicity. Underrepresentation of girls has received less attention. This research compared the predictive validity and gender bias of the admissions criterion, the Specialized High School Admissions Test (SHSAT), with that of seventh grade GPA, a possible additional criterion. SHSAT (r2 = 0.20) predicted high school grades less precisely than GPA7 (r2 = 0.44) and underpredicted girls' grades in all academic domains and specific courses analyzed. Girls were overrepresented in the upper tail of STEM course grades. Simulated admissions using an index combining SHSAT and GPA7 suggest that different admissions criteria might improve the quality of the admitted cohort, increase diversity, and be gender-fair.


  1. AERA. (2014). Standards for education and psychological tests. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

  2. Baldiga, K. (2014), Gender differences in willingness to guess. Management Science, 60(2), 434–448.

  3. Bennett, R. E. (1993), On the meanings of constructed response. In R.E. Bennett & C. Ward (Eds.). Construction versus choice in cognitive measurement. (pp. 1–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  4. Bonner, S. M. (2013), Mathematical strategy use in solving test items in varied formats. The Journal of Experimental Education. 81(3), 409–428.

  5. Calandra, J., & Hecht, B. (1971), Text of Calandra-Hecht bill amending sec. 2590g, Subdivision 12 of the education law. Retrieved from https://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2012/10/text-of-calandra-hecht-bill-amending.html.

  6. Cleary, T. A. (1968), Test bias: Prediction of grades of Negro and white students in integrated colleges. Journal of Educational Measurement, 5(2), 115–124.

  7. Demars, C. E. (1998) , Gender differences in math and science on a high school proficiency exam: the role of response format. Applied Measurement in Education, 11(3), 279–299.

  8. Demars, C. E. (2000) , Test stakes and item format interactions. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(1), 55–77.

  9. Dempster, A. P. (1988) , Employment discrimination and statistical science. Statistical Science, 3(2), 149–161.

  10. Finn, C. E., Jr., & Hockett, J. A. (2012), Exam schools: Inside America’s most selective schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  11. Gallagher, A. M., DeLisi, R., Holst, P. C., McGullicuddy-DeLisi, A. V., & Morely, M. (2000), Gender differences in advanced mathematical problem solving. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 75, 165–190.

  12. Mattern, K. D., Patterson, B. F., Shaw, E. J., Kobrin, J. L., & Barbuti, S. M. (2008), Differential validity and prediction of the SAT. College Board. Retrieved from http://professionals. collegeboard.com/profdownload/ Differential_Validity_and_Prediction_of_the_SAT.pdf.

  13. Mazzeo, J., Schmitt, A. P., & Bleistein, C. A. (1993), Sex related performance differences on constructed-response and multiple choice sections of advanced place examinations. ETS RR No. 93-5.

  14. Princeton Review. (2018), Cracking the NYC SHSAT (3 Ed.) New York, NY: Penguin Random House.

  15. Stricker, L. J., Rock, D. A., & Burton, N. W. (1993), Sex differences in predictions of college grades from Scholastic Aptitude Test scores. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4),710–718.

  16. Subotnik, R. F., & Strauss, S. M. (1995), Gender differences in classroom participation and achievement: An experiment involving advanced placement calculus classes. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 6(2), 77–85.

  17. Tannenbaum, D.I. (2012), Do gender differences in risk aversion explain the gender gap in SAT Scores? Uncovering risk attitudes and the test score gap. Unpublished paper, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

  18. Taylor, J. (2015), Policy implications of a predictive validity study of the Specialized High School Admissions Test at three elite New York City high schools. Unpublished Dissertation, Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York, NY.

  19. Traub, R. E., & MacRury, K. A., Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. (1990). Multiple-choice vs. free-response in the testing of scholastic achievement. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

  20. Wainer, H., & Steinberg, L.S. (1992), Sex differences in performance on the mathematics section of the Scholastic Aptitude Test: A bidirectional validity study. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), 323–337.