Stoolmiller M
Oregon Social Learning Center, Eugene 97401, USA.
Psychol Bull. 1999 Jul;125(4):392-409. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.4.392.
Group and individual-difference adoption designs lead to opposite conclusions concerning the importance of shared environment (SE) for the child outcomes of IQ and antisocial behavior. This paradox could be due to the range restriction (RR) of family environments (FE) that goes with adoption studies. Measures of FE from 2 of the most recent adoption studies indicate that RR is substantial, about 67%, which corresponds to the top half of a normal FE distribution. RR of 67% cuts effect sizes and R2 statistics by factors of 3 and 2-2.5, respectively. Because selection into an adoption study in inherently a between-family process and assuming that comparable restriction of genetic (G) influences are absent, estimates of SE, G, and nonshared influences will be substantially biased, respectively, down, up, and up by RR. Corrections for RR applied to adoption studies indicate that SE could account for as much as 50% of the variance in IQ.
群体和个体差异收养设计就共享环境(SE)对智商和反社会行为等儿童结果的重要性得出了相反的结论。这种矛盾可能是由于收养研究中家庭环境(FE)的范围限制(RR)所致。来自最近两项收养研究的FE测量表明,RR相当大,约为67%,这对应于正常FE分布的上半部分。67%的RR分别将效应大小和R²统计量削减了3倍和2至2.5倍。由于进入收养研究的选择本质上是一个家庭间的过程,并且假设不存在对遗传(G)影响的类似限制,SE、G和非共享影响的估计将分别因RR而大幅偏差,即向下、向上和向上。应用于收养研究的RR校正表明,SE可能占智商方差的50%之多。