Hello There, Guest!  
1 2 3 4 5 6 Next 

[OBG] Genetic and Environmental Determinants of IQ in Black, White, and Hispanic Amer

#1
John Fuerst
Dalliard
Abstract
The authors conducted a meta-analysis of behavioral genetic variance components (ACE) x race/ethnicity interactions for cognitive ability. The differences between the variance components for Black and White Americans were small, despite the large average test score differences. More substantial differences were found between Hispanics and Whites, though results were based on only two studies.

Attached:
Doc File
Excel file

I fixed the title. -Emil


Attached Files
.doc   Genetic and Environmental Determinants of IQ in Black and White Americans7114014.doc (Size: 235 KB / Downloads: 1,344)
.xlsx   RacexACEinteractonupdated07142014 (Recovered).xlsx (Size: 47.91 KB / Downloads: 608)
 Reply
#2
Excellent paper. I have some comments. Numbers refer to lines in the file.

24:
"Such analyses directly indicate only the sources of within-race differences, but they nevertheless have important implications for understanding the causes of the Black-White and Hispanic-White mean differences in IQ, which research consistently shows to be about 1 and 0.7 standard deviations, respectively (Roth et al., 2001). "

I would also add this meta-analysis: http://humanvarieties.org/2013/01/15/sec...ility-gap/

It is much newer (12 years) than the Roth one. Note also that some people have recently claimed that the W-B gap is diminishing. It was already discussed in 2005 in the special issue about Rushton and Jensen's review paper. Perhaps you want to mention this. Perhaps not.

Space too much at the end.

28:
"In behavioral genetics, the sources of IQ variance can be partitioned into three components: heredity (h2), shared environment (c2), and unshared environment (e2). These are also known as the ACE components. The meaning of h2 (also referred to as a2) should be obvious. c2 refers to environmental effects that serve to make family members more similar to each other, while e2 consists of those non-genetic effects that are not shared between family members but differentiate them from each other. c2 and e2 are collectively known as environmentality. The basic biometric model assumes that environmental and genetic influences are additive, but there may also be interactions between them, and these can be estimated as well."

I would include a source for these claims. For instance, Plomin et al 2012. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1587...l-genetics

Jensen's publications also introduce the concepts well.

51:
"for lower social class groups, at least in the U.S. (Turkheimer and Horn, 2014). "

Space at the end.

53:
"narrative reports have drawn opposing conclusions (cf. Jensen, 1998; Scarr, 1981). "

Spacing.

55:
"We conducted a literature search for papers containing either heritability estimates or kinship correlations that would allow for the computation of such estimates for racial and ethnic groups in the U.S."

You need to provide explicit search criteria. Which databases did you search? Which keywords? When? Any limits on publication year?

Also explicit exclusion criteria.

57:
"ethnic groups in the U.S. When"

Spacing.

59:
"estimates. We were able to locate thirteen studies; these are shown in table 1 below. "
Spacing.

60:
"Table 1: List of Samples Included and Excluded"
I would bold the captions of the tables.

63:
"excluded. One study"
Spacing.

65:
"Beaver et al. (2013)"
Spacing.

69:
"excluded. This"
Spacing.

71:
"below. "
Spacing.

There are lots of more spacing errors. Just do a search for " " (two spaces, forum software overrides my text) in the document to find them.

81:
"(personal communication, October, 3, 2013; personal communication, September, 24, 2013) "
Don't need to repeat "personal communication", you can repeat the dates if you want or not.

202:
The table needs a caption and needs to be shrunk to fit the page. I would also like to have a column with sample sizes as this helps the interpretation.

280:

"Tucker-Drob, E. M., Briley, D. A., & Harden, K. P. (2013). Genetic and environmental influences on cognition across development and context. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 349-355."

They stress the SES x h^2 correlation. They don't mention that other, very large, studies have not found the same result. Mentioned here: http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.dk/2014/...gence.html
 Reply
#3
This version has multiple problems. I didn't know that John has already posted it here. So, I have responded by mails. Perhaps John will reply it directly ?
 Reply
#4
I am currently reworking the paper to meet Emil and MH's requests.
 Reply
#5
(2014-Jul-19, 22:37:13)Chuck Wrote: I am currently reworking the paper to meet Emil and MH's requests.


Ok, here it my latest draft. I addressed Emil's concern and included a discussion of search methods.


Attached Files
.doc   Genetic and Environmental Determinants of IQ in Black, Hispanc, and White Americans08052014.doc (Size: 375.5 KB / Downloads: 580)
.xlsx   RacexACEinteractonupdated08052014 (Recovered).xlsx (Size: 145.27 KB / Downloads: 583)
 Reply
#6
sp = spacing problem

6:
sp

7:
Dalliard's name is misspelled.

18:22
Needs a cite for claims. Pick one of the recent review articles. Last sentence should probably get "in adults".

32:
You mean "genetic" (broad). E includes error, which is worth mentioning because authors rarely correct for test unreliability so their results are underestimates as pointed out by Jensen in his '69 paper.

33:
h2 isnt the same as a2. a2 refers to additive genetic factors. h2 may or may not include more depending on whether it is broad or narrow. Narrow h2 is the same as a2.

40:46
This overlaps with the beginning of the Introduction. Rewrite.

56:
sp

57:
Odd phrasing. “Meta-analytic method” maybe? Or just “Method”?

60:
sp. There are so many more of these. Just search for “[space][space]” in the text editor to find them.

83:84
Rewords. Desegregated sounds like you are saying they live in racially segregated communities as in Apartheid times.

Tables have visual problems.

100:
Odd phrasing. “Results” or “Meta-analytic results” or something.

169:
I don't understand the results in Table 7. There are clearly non-zero values in Unstandardized col. E, but they are exactly 0 in Standardized. Explain?

283:
Where is “the first table”? I can't find a table with results for the g factor.

Can you conduct MCV analyses to see whether the g-loading of the subtest correlates with the h2 of it as claimed by among others Jensen (1998)? I note that the A for the g factor is higher than that reported in the Table 8, which indicates that it is the g factor that drives the h2, not the remaining variance.

Added. From looking the later tables, there are only 5 subtests with low heterogeneity, so MCV is probably not worth doing.

291:
Both Hart et al studies (2010, 2013) are missing from the reference list. You should check for more missing references.

It seems to me that research based on extended relations would be theoretically superior, not less robust. I could not check the Hart reference to see if some justification was given in that for this claim. Explain?

303:
You should conduct a test to see if this difference is reliable. Fluke perhaps? It goes against all standard theory that h2 should be lower for whites.

338:
Actually, the three way pattern of results is exactly reverse. In sibs: W>H>B. In extended, B>H>W. Very strange. Analytic error? I note that it is found using both methods of dealing with age from looking at Table 12.

353:
Sampling error does not seem a plausible candidate. All sample sizes are in the thousands. From looking at Table 12, the smallest sample is N=1112. Very large for a BG study.

367:
The extended model, does that also use siblings, or only cousin and further away data? Perhaps try estimates based only on e.g. cousins.
 Reply
#7
I uploaded a new edition for D's preview. I made most of the corrections suggested by Emil. I'm not sure how to search for spaces using my version of Word (using " " doesn't work), so I will have to deal with that another time. I replied in detail to Emil's comments but just before positing my computer shut down. I don't have time now to rewrite the reply. I will let D handle most of the replies, as I will be out of town for the next week.

One thing, concerning the CNLSY analysis, Joe Rodgers (personal communication, December 02, 2013) told us the following:

Quote:"John -- I have a few comments. First, it's pretty much an empirical question as to how the cousins work within the modeling. Sometimes they help a great deal, sometimes they mess things up -- it's a little post hoc, of course, but there are reasons we can develop to explain each. As you note, the potential violation of the EEA is one of those.

So over many years, our teams' standard strategy has been to fit models using cousins, and also not using cousins. Most often, it doesn't matter; sometimes it does. In the first case, we report the result with the larger sample size, and note the other finding as well. In the latter, we report one or both, and interpret the potential problem (usually through violation of the EEA). These statements have applied to both the NLSY79 and NLSYC samples. In cross-generational analysis (Rodgers et al, Behavior Genetics, 2008), the EEA takes on a different status, as we discuss in that paper -- it's attached.

I'm attaching three additional papers that show different outcomes in regards the cousin -- see p. 380 in Rodgers, Rodgers, & Li; p. 37 in Rodgers, Rowe, & Buster, & page 356 in Rodgers, Bard, & Miller.

It's worth noting that Fisher talked about cousins as a "problem category" -- I have that cite somewhere, but I can't easily put my hands on it. He found the cousins often had higher kinship correlations that quantitative genetic models suggested they should -- which is the finding that we usually get if they're problematic.

You can follow our typical approach, or not -- and if you do, you have some papers to cite. But at the bottom line, it's up to each research team to make this call, in relation to the EEA assumption, in relation to sample size considerations, whether the DV being used seems plausible in terms of the EEA assumption, etc., etc.

Good luck with this -- hope the comments above are helpful."

We followed Joe's advice and reported both sibling and extended results and offered a possible explanation. One explanation not discussed is epigenetics, which has a differential effect on siblings and cousins. Omri Tal provided a model to determine variance due to epigeneticd which, I believe, could be applied to the CNLSY data, but doing so would require the writing of an R program which is beyond both my capability and patience.

Another, Emil said: "You should conduct a test to see if this difference is reliable. Fluke perhaps? It goes against all standard theory that h2 should be lower for whites."

As I explained to Malloy, D, and others this "standard theory" supposes that scores for minority groups are environmentally depressed. If they are not -- if the scores are genetically depressed -- this same theory predicts equal ACE such as found within populations between the upper and lower percentiles e.g., 15th percentile versus 85%.

Later.


Attached Files
.doc   Genetic and Environmental Determinants of IQ in Black, Hispanc, and White Americans08072014 (1).doc (Size: 377.5 KB / Downloads: 540)
.pdf   Multivariate Cholesky Models of Human Female Fertility Patterns in the NLSY.pdf (Size: 270.4 KB / Downloads: 543)
.pdf   The Cross-Generational Mother-Daughter-Aunt-Niece-Design.pdf (Size: 477.78 KB / Downloads: 590)
 Reply
#8
I mistyped that. I meant higher for whites, lower for whichever underperforming minority the PC people feel bad for.
 Reply
#9
I made two more minor corrections plus those below.

"Dalliard's name is misspelled."

Fixed.

"Needs a cite for claims. Pick one of the recent review articles. Last sentence should probably get "in adults"."

Citation at end of paragraph.

"You mean "genetic" (broad). E includes error, which is worth mentioning because authors rarely correct for test unreliability so their results are underestimates as pointed out by Jensen in his '69 paper."

Fixed.

"h2 isnt the same as a2. a2 refers to additive genetic factors. h2 may or may not include more depending on whether it is broad or narrow. Narrow h2 is the same as a2."

h^2 typically means narrow heritability, while broad heritability is H^2.
http://books.google.com/books?id=0jB9NzD...H2&f=false

"This overlaps with the beginning of the Introduction. Rewrite."

Fixed.

"Odd phrasing. “Meta-analytic method” maybe? Or just “Method”"

Added colon. “Meta-analysis: method


"Desegregated sounds like you are saying they live in racially segregated communities as in Apartheid times."

Fixed.

"I don't understand the results in Table 7. There are clearly non-zero values in Unstandardized col. E, but they are exactly 0 in Standardized. Explain?"

Added above: "Regarding the computation of ACE estimates, following ordinary practice, we standardized the values such that the total variance added up to 1.00 and no A, C, or E values were negative."


"Where is “the first table”? I can't find a table with results for the g factor."

rewrote as: "g-scores were derived from scores on Digit Span Forward and Backward, PIAT-M, PIAT-RR, PIAT-RC, and PPVT tests taken at age 11. The results are shown in the supplementary file. The genetic variances were 0.61 for Whites, 0.55 for Blacks, and 0.60 for Hispanics. The fact that the g scores are based on multiple tests should make the results reasonably reliable."

"Both Hart et al studies (2010, 2013) are missing from the reference list. You should check for more missing references."

Fixed.

"It seems to me that research based on extended relations would be theoretically superior, not less robust. I could not check the Hart reference to see if some justification was given in that for this claim. Explain?"

Discussed above.

"The extended model, does that also use siblings, or only cousin and further away data? Perhaps try estimates based only on e.g. cousins."

Extended = sibs + cousins. The cousins only shows very high h^2.


Attached Files
.doc   Genetic and Environmental Determinants of IQ in Black, Hispanc, and White Americans08072014 (1) (1).doc (Size: 377.5 KB / Downloads: 694)
 Reply
#10
Attached is our latest -- and hopefully final -- version. I corrected some typos in the tables and Dalliard corrected some language issues. I also attached Hart et. al.'s (2014) data.


Attached Files
.xlsx   RacexACEinteractonupdated08182014 (Recovered) (Autosaved).xlsx (Size: 145.86 KB / Downloads: 584)
.doc   Genetic and Environmental Determinants of IQ in Black, Hispanc, and White Americans08182014 (2).doc (Size: 379.5 KB / Downloads: 723)
.pdf   Hart2014meta-race_intraclass_corrs_schoolSES_03.16.14.pdf (Size: 116.35 KB / Downloads: 596)
 Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 Next 
 
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)