Winter 2005 Masthead


Donna Y. Ford 1
Vanderbilt University
Nashville, TN

Background: Confusion and Controversy

In that location is a great deal of business and debate about the low performance of racially and linguistically diverse students—African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native Americans—on standardized tests, as well as their under-representation in gifted education. Nowhere are the debates and controversies surrounding intelligence more prevalent than in gifted education and special education. These two educational fields rely extensively on tests to make educational and placement decisions. In gifted didactics, low exam scores often forbid diverse students from beingness identified as gifted and receiving services; in special didactics, low exam scores frequently result in identifications such as learning disabled, mentally retarded, and then forth. Racially and linguistically various students (African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native Americans) are nether-represented in gifted education and over-represented in special teaching (come across Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted and National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC], 2003; U.S. Section of Education, 2003).

There are two persistent, major debates or controversies surrounding minority students' intelligence examination performance. In ane camp, scholars argue that the low test functioning of minority students tin can be attributed to cultural deprivation or disadvantage(s); connotatively, this refers to the notion of various students being inferior to other students (run into Rushton, 2003). Unfortunately, deficit thinking orientations are present even today (e.one thousand., Ford, Harris, Tyson, & Frazier Trotman, 2002). For instance, Frasier, García, and Passow (1995), and Harmon (2002) argued that teachers tend not to refer racially and culturally diverse students to gifted programs because of their deficit thinking and stereotypes nigh diverse students. When the focus is on what various students cannot do rather than what they tin can do, then they are non likely to be referred for gifted pedagogy services.

In a different camp, scholars argue that minority students are culturally different, simply not culturally disadvantaged or deficient (e.k., Boykin, 1986; Delpit, 1995; Erickson, 2004; Nieto, 1999; Rodriguez & Bellanca, 1996; Shade, Kelly, & Oberg, 1997). These individuals admit that culture impacts test operation, just they practice not equate or acquaintance low operation with inferiority.

Beyond the ongoing debates well-nigh the source in intelligence, at that place are equally spirited and rigorous debates about the employ of standardized tests with various groups, with the greatest attending to bug of test bias (Armour-Thomas, 1992; Helms, 1992). Publications on examination bias seem to accept waned in the last decade, although the Bong Curve (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) generated renewed debates and controversy. Many test developers take gone to bang-up length to subtract or eliminate (if this is possible) culturally biased (or culturally-loaded) test items (Johnsen, 2004). Accordingly, some scholars contend that examination bias no longer exists (east.yard., Fancher, 1995; Jensen 1998; 2000; Rushton, 2003). Others debate that tests tin can be culturally-reduced, that bias tin be decreased; nevertheless others contend that tests tin can never be bias gratuitous or culturally neutral considering they are adult past people, they reflect the culture of the test programmer, and absolute fairness to every examinee is impossible to attain, for no other reasons than the fact that tests have imperfect reliability and that validity in any particular context is a matter of caste (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Clan, & National Council on Measurement in Education, hereafter referred to as "Joint Standards," 1999).

In sum, there is little consensus in education (and psychology) well-nigh the reasons diverse students score lower on standardized tests of intelligence than exercise White students. Further, in that location is little consensus regarding the definition of intelligence, the definition of test bias, the existence of test bias, the types of examination biases, the impact of examination bias on diverse students, and the nature and extent of test bias in contemporary or newly re-normed tests.

With so many unanswered questions and controversies regarding intelligence, testing in general, and testing diverse students in detail, what can educators in gifted education do to ensure that these students have access to and are represented in gifted education programs and services?

Testing Issues and Various Populations

In that location is a longstanding and persistent debate regarding the equitable employ of tests and assessment strategies with diverse populations. This debate and related concerns are especially prevalent in cases of loftier-stakes testing, where tests are used to brand of import and long-term educational decisions about students. Every bit Lam (1993) observed, once exam scores become numbers in students' files, they provide the basis for high-stakes decisions apropos placement, option, certification, and promotion that are made without consideration of the inequities surrounding testing in general and testing culturally various students in particular.

Psychological and psychoeducational assessment is an area that has been heavily subjected to complaints about the differential treatment of diverse groups. Korchin (1980), and others fence that standardized tests accept contributed to the perpetuation of social, economic, and political barriers confronting diverse groups (Padilla & Medina, 1996; Suzuki, Meller, & Ponterotto, 1996). Specifically, questions have been raised regarding whether standardized intelligence tests are biased. Tests tin can exist biased in terms of impact (e.k., how they are used) and statistically. Tests can be biased if they treat groups unfairly or discriminate against diverse groups by, for example, "underestimating their potential or over-pathologizing their symptoms" (Suzuki et al., 1996, p. xiii). This concept is referred to as disparate bear upon (Office for Civil Rights [OCR], 2000) and may not exist associated with statistical biases, defined side by side. The Joint Standards (1999) divers statistical bias as a systematic error in a test score. In discussing test fairness, statistical bias may refer to construct under-representation or construct-irrelevant components of examination scores that differentially affect the performance of different groups of examination takers. Thus, it is important to note that when tests are used for selecting and screening, the potential for denying diverse groups access to educational opportunities, such every bit gifted educational activity programs, due to bias is great.

The consequences of interpretation bias are grave. For instance, considering many school districts rely on a unmarried examination score to place students in gifted instruction programstwo, and given the lower operation of diverse groups on tests, this practice serves every bit an effective gate-keeping machinery. Interpreting exam performance—high or depression—based on ane test or measure must exist avoided due to the limited data provided from a unmarried score. NAGC (1997), OCR (2000), and Joint Standards (1999) have noted the serious limitations and negative consequences (eastward.g., disparate touch) of using i exam score to identify students as gifted and to determine their need for placement in gifted education programs. In other words:

Tests are not perfect. Examination questions are a sample of possible questions that could exist asked in a given surface area. Moreover, a test score is not an verbal measure of a educatee'due south cognition or skills. A student's scores tin exist expected to vary across different versions of a test—within a margin of fault determined by the reliability of the test, and every bit a function of the particular sample of questions asked and/or transitory factors, such as the educatee's health on the 24-hour interval of the tests. Thus, no single test score can be considered a definitive measure out of a student's knowledge. (OCR, 2000, p. 14)


Our bones obligation equally educators is to meet the needs of students every bit they come to us—with their different learning styles, economic backgrounds, cultural backgrounds, and academic skills. In Larry P. v. Riles (1979), the court argued:

If tests predict that a person is going to be a poor employee, the employer tin legitimately deny the person the job, merely if tests propose that a young child is probably going to exist a poor student, a school cannot on that basis lone deny that child the opportunity to better and develop the bookish skills necessary to succeed in our gild.


Stated differently, gifted education must non simply teach gifted students who demonstrate their gifts and talents, they must also address student potential and, thus, create talent development models (Callahan & McIntyre, 1994; USDE, 1993, 1998).

The Influence of Culture on Exam Performance: African-American Students as a Example in Point

Culture can be divers as the commonage behavior, attitudes, traditions, customs, and behaviors that serve as a filter through which a group of people view and reply to the globe (Erickson, 2004; Ford & Harris, 1999; Ford et al., 2002; Hall, 1976). Culture is a manner of life, a way of looking at and interpreting life, and a way of responding to life. This definition becomes clearer when i thinks of "the terrible twos," the teen or adolescent culture, the culture of poverty, and then forth. Members of these groups have in common beliefs, attitudes, traditions, customs, and behaviors (e.g., Storti, 1998).

In a thoughtful and compelling monograph entitled A New Window for Looking at Gifted Children, Frasier et al. (1995) land, "Manifestation of characteristics associated with giftedness may be unlike in minority children, yet educators are seldom trained in identifying those behaviors in ways other than the way they are observed in the majority culture" (p. 33). This statement was confirmed in a study that included teachers' perceptions of giftedness among diverse students (Frasier et al. (1995). Besides, Helms (1992) asks:

  1. Is there evidence that the culturally conditioned intellectual skills used by Blacks and Whites more often than not differ and that these differences have been equivalently incorporated into the measurement procedures?
  2. Do Blacks and Whites apply the aforementioned exam-taking strategies when ostensibly responding to the same material, and practice these strategies accept equivalent meaning?
  3. If different strategies are used by the racial groups, to what extent are these differences an aspect of test predictors and test criteria?
  4. How does one measure the cultural characteristics of intelligence tests? (p. 1097)

The implications of these questions for educators are that, when differences in operation on intelligence tests are attributed to racial or ethnic differences, educators must recognize this caption for the non sequitur that it is. Instead of continuing to utilise such measures until something better comes along, educators must challenge the scientists on whose work their exam usage is based to discover culturally defined psychological explanations (east.chiliad., civilisation-specific attitudes, feelings, and behaviors) for why such racial and ethnic differences be (Helms, 1992, p. 1097).

Lam (1993) discussed five assumptions (or misassumptions) that summarize the many concerns that persist relative to intelligence testing and diverse groups:

  1. Test developers assume that test takers accept no linguistic barriers (or differences) that inhibit their functioning on tests.
  2. Test developers assume that the content of the examination at any detail level is suitable and of most equal difficulty for examination takers.
  3. Examination developers presume that test takers are familiar with or have the test sophistication for taking standardized tests.
  4. Examination developers assume that test takers are properly motivated to do well on the test.
  5. Test developers presume that test takers exercise non have potent negative psychological reactions to testing.

Promising Practices and Considerations

Intelligence tests are here to stay. However, educators are not jump by their exclusive utilize. Educators do non have to exist "slaves" to tests; instead, they tin work to ensure that tests, policies and procedures, equally described beneath, are valid, reliable and off-white. The first pace is to develop culturally sensitive assumptions.

Culturally Sensitive Assumptions
The accuracy and appropriateness of the intellectual assessment process is based on a number of assumptions, a few of which were discussed earlier. Kaufman (1990, 1994) suggested alternative assumptions worthy of adoption considering they offer promise in making testing more culturally sensitive:

  1. The focus on an assessment is the person being assessed, non the examination (Kaufman, 1990). Professionals should not get preoccupied with the IQ scores to the detriment of the individual being assessed.
  2. The goal of whatever examiner is to be better than the tests he/she uses (Kaufman, 1990). It requires cognition, skills, and cultural competence to make a complete and comprehensive assessment of diverse groups.
  3. Intelligence tests measure what the individual has learned (Kaufman, 1990). The content of all tasks, whether verbal or not-exact, is learned within a culture (Miller, 1996). Therefore, all tests are culturally-loaded.
  4. The tasks composing intelligence tests are illustrative samples of beliefs and are not meant to be exhaustive (Kaufman, 1994). Collateral data (e.m., learning styles, motivation, interests, wellness) must be collected to develop a profile of an individual's strengths and weaknesses and to, then, develop educational interventions and opportunities.
  5. Intelligence tests measure mental functioning under fixed experimental conditions (Kaufman, 1990). As such, how individuals will demonstrate their intelligence in other settings cannot be accurately predicted without gathering extensive information—test data and not-examination information—on individuals in other settings.
  6. IQ tests must be interpreted on an individual basis by a "shrewd and flexible detective" (Kaufman, 1990, p. 27). Professionals must investigate all information collected on students in club to provide a comprehensive moving-picture show of the individual in his/her cultural context.
  7. Intelligence tests are best used to generate hypotheses of potential help to the person; they are misused when the results lead to harmful outcomes (Kaufman, 1990). Besides oft, information obtained from intelligence tests accept been used to indicate the inferiority of culturally various groups (run across lengthy discussions on this topic by Gould, 1995 and Fancher, 1995). Professionals need to move across deficit thinking when assessing diverse populations (Ford et al., 2002; Samuda, 1998).
  8. Validity and reliability are not only established by test developers, they are besides established by test users and interpreters. Sandoval, Frisby, Geisinger, Scheuneman, and Grenier (1998) offered the following recommendations relative to promoting equitable assessments with diverse groups; these recommendations focus primarily on means to improve interpretations of various students' scores.
    1. Identify preconceptions—professionals must identify their conceptions and viewpoints—negative and positive—about various groups, and recognize that these perceptions influence their assessment of various groups.
    2. Develop complex schemes or conceptions of groups—A major problem with interpreting the exam scores of diverse groups is that results are examined with lilliputian regard to the many factors that bear on the lives and performance of these groups.
    3. Actively search for disconfirmatory evidence—When using and interpreting test scores, especially low test scores, of various groups, professionals must constantly search for alternative explanations. For example, central questions are: "Did the individual have the opportunity to larn the data or to express it on the exam?" "How does the individual's culture touch his/her examination performance?"
    4. Resist a rush to judgment—Professionals must be reflective, thoughtful, inquisitive in their exercise of interpreting and using test scores with various groups. In gild to avert rushing to judgment, Kaufman (1994) recommended that professionals spend fourth dimension interacting in the neighborhoods that are serviced by their schools as a firsthand means of learning local cultural values, traditions, and community.

Summary—Guiding Principles for Equitable and Culturally Responsive Assessment

Regardless of whether one is using traditional intelligence tests or tests considered to be less culturally-loaded, testing, assessment, test interpretation, and exam employ must be guided past sound, defensible, and equitable principles and practices. The following guiding principles are offered for consideration:

  1. Every school organisation must be committed to equity in finding potentially gifted students; this goal is not-negotiable (Frasier et al., 1995).
  2. In add-on to examining test bias, we must examine test fairness (Gregory, 2004). We must not become conceited in the belief that finding a test to be unbiased means that the exam is fair—an unbiased test tin can even so exist unfair (Gregory, 2004). Exam bias and test fairness should be explored.
  3. The furnishings of threats to a exam's validity and reliability must be examined and considered when interpreting and using examination scores (Joint Standards, 1999).
  4. A given pattern of exam performances represents a cross-exclusive view of the individual being assessed within a detail context (i.e., ethnic, cultural, familial, social) (Joint Standards, 1999).
  5. In that location is no test score that tin can tell, ex mail facto, the native potential that a student may take had at nascence (Samuda, 1998); Do not overvalue IQs or treat them as a magical manifestation of a child's inborn potential (Kaufman, 1994); do non over-interpret test scores by assigning them undue power.
  6. Test scores should not be allowed to override other sources of evidence about test takers (Joint Standards, 1999).
  7. In educational settings, a decision or characterization that volition accept major impact on a educatee should non be made on the basis of a single test score (NAGC, 1997). Other relevant information should exist taken into account if it will enhance the overall validity of the decision (Articulation Standards, 1999).
  8. Comprehensive assessment, the gathering of a wide range of information about test takers, helps to place examination scores into a socio-cultural context by considering how an examinee'south functioning is influenced by acculturation, linguistic communication proficiency, socioeconomic groundwork, and ethnic/racial identity (Samuda, Feuerstein, Kaufman, Lewis, & Sternberg, 1998) . . . comprehensive assessment is a continuous process and the assessor must learn as much equally possible well-nigh the examination taker's civilisation . . . and level of acculturation.
  9. It is the responsibleness of those who mandate the use of tests to place and monitor their bear on and to minimize potential negative consequences. Consequences resulting from the uses of the exam, both intended and unintended, should also be examined by the exam user (Joint Standards, 1999).
  10. In cases where a language-oriented exam is inappropriate due to the test takers' limited proficiency in that language, a non-verbal exam may be a suitable alternative (Joint Standards, 1999). Both exact and not-exact tests tin can provide balanced and important information near diverse students (Samuda et al., 1998).
  11. When interpreting test scores, the examiner or tester must take into account that many traditional tests have not been normed fairly with various cultural groups (Samuda et al., 1998); examination users must exist constantly aware of the limitations of standardized tests (Kaufman, 1994).
  12. The ultimate responsibility for appropriate test use and interpretation lies predominantly with test users (Articulation Standards, 1999); they must gain experience in working with culturally various groups in order to improve their ability to interpret and effectively apply test scores (Kaufman, 1994).
  13. Tests selected should be suitable for the characteristics and background of the test taker (Joint Standards, 1999). Examination scores must not be interpreted and used in a color-blind or culture-blind fashion (Ford, 1996).
  14. Every try must exist fabricated to eliminate prejudice, racism and inequities and to provide accurate and meaningful scores linked to advisable intervention strategies (Samuda et al., 1998). Essentially, test scores should exist used to aid students, not to hurt them.

Conclusion

Selecting, interpreting and using tests are complicated endeavors. When ane adds student differences, including cultural multifariousness, to the situation, the complexity increases. A discussion on the nature-nurture debate was discussed briefly. Fiddling attending was given to this controversy because the discussion is convoluted—for every publication that convincingly argues for the heredity position, an equally compelling publication argues for the environmental position. Too, for every publication that argues persuasively against the existence of test bias, a counterargument convincingly contends that tests continue to be biased against diverse groups.

At that place is no debate, however, that culturally and linguistically diverse students are consistently under-represented in gifted programs. Under-representation exists primarily considering of diverse students' performance on traditional intelligence tests. These tests have served as gatekeepers for diverse students. Suggestions for ensuring equitable, culturally responsive cess practices were provided, along with attention to alternative tests—non-verbal power tests. Professionals must be vigilant virtually finding and solving factors that hinder the test operation of diverse students. Tests are tools. The ultimate responsibleness for equitable assessment rests with those who develop, administer, translate, and utilize tests. Tests in and of themselves are harmless; they go harmful when misunderstood and misused. Historically, various students have been harmed educationally by test misuse. The pedagogical clock is ticking. What ameliorate time than today to be more responsible in eliminating barriers to the representation of various students in gifted pedagogy. A heed is a terrible thing to waste; a mind is a terrible thing to erase (Ford & Harris, 1999).

Reference

American Educational Enquiry Association, American Psychological Association, and National Quango on Measurement in Educational activity. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Authors.

Armour-Thomas, E. (1992). Intellectual cess of children from culturally diverse backgrounds. School Psychology Review, 21(4), 552-565.

Boykin, A. W. (1986). The triple quandary and the schooling of Afro-American children. In U. Neisser (Ed.), The school achievement of minority children (pp. 57-91). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Callahan, C. G., & McIntyre, J. A. (1994). Identifying outstanding talent in American Indian and Alaska Native students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Educational activity.

Council of State Directors of Program for the Gifted and National Clan for Gifted Children. (2003). State of united states of america gifted and talented education report, 2001-2002. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY: The New Press.

Erickson, F. (2004). Culture in society and in educational practices. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (5th ed., pp. 31-55). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

Fancher, R. Eastward. (1995). The intelligence men: Makers of the IQ controversy. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Ford, D. Y. (2004). Intelligence testing and cultural multifariousness: Concerns, cautions and considerations (RM04204). Storrs: Academy of Connecticut, The National Research Centre on the Gifted and Talented.

Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement amid gifted Blackness students: Promising practices and programs. New York, NY: Teachers Higher Press.

Ford, D. Y., & Harris, Three, J. J. (1999). Multicultural gifted pedagogy. New York, NY: Teachers Higher Press.

Ford, D. Y., Harris 3, J. J., Tyson, C. A., & Frazier Trotman, M. (2002). Beyond arrears thinking: Providing access for gifted African American students. Roeper Review, 24, 52-58.

Frasier, M. M., García, J. H., & Passow, A. H. (1995). A review of assessment issues in gifted education and their implications for identifying gifted minority students (RM95204). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Frasier, M. K., Martin, D., García, J. H., Finley, V. S., Frank, E., Krisel, S., & Male monarch, L. L. (1995). A new window for looking at gifted children (RM95222). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Gould, Due south. J. (1995). The mismeasure of homo. New York, NY: Norton.

Gregory, R. J. (2004). Psychological testing: History, principles and applications (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Salary.

Hall, Due east. T. (1976). Beyond civilisation. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Harmon, D. (2002). They won't teach me: The voices of gifted African American inner-city students. Roeper Review, 24, 68-75.

Helms, J. (1992). Why is in that location no report of equivalence in standardized cognitive-ability testing? American Psychologist, 47, 1083-1101.

Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bong curve: Intelligence and grade construction in American life. New York, NY: Costless Press.

Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Jensen, A. R. (2000). Testing: The dilemma of group differences. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 121-127.

Johnsen, S. M. (2004). Identifying gifted students: A practical guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Printing.

Kaufman, A. S. (1990). Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Kaufman, A. S. (1994). Intelligent testing with the WISC-III. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Korchin, Due south. J. (1980). Clinical psychology and minority populations. American Psychologist, 35, 262-269.

Lam, T. C. G. (1993). Testability: A critical issue in testing language minority students with standardized achievement tests. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 26, 179-191.

Larry P. five. Riles (1979, October). NO. C-712270 RFP (North. C. Cal.).

Miller, J. One thousand. (1996). A cultural-psychological perspective on intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & Eastward. 50. Grigorenko (Eds.), Intelligence, heredity, and environment (pp. 269-302). New York, NY: Cambridge Academy Printing.

National Clan for Gifted Children. (1997). Position paper on testing. Washington, DC: Writer.

Nieto, S. (Ed.). (1999). The lite in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Office for Civil Rights. (2000). The utilise of tests as part of high-stakes decision-making for students: A resource guide for educators and policy-makers. Washington, DC: Author.

Padilla, A. One thousand., & Medina, A. (1996). Cantankerous-cultural sensitivity in assessment: Using tests in culturally advisable means. In Fifty. A. Suzuki, J. P. Meller, & J. G. Ponterotto (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural assessment: Clinical, psychological, and educational applications (pp. 3-28). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rodriguez, E. R., & Bellanca, J. (1996). What is it near me y'all can't teach: An instructional guide for the urban educator. Arlington Heights, IL: SkyLight.

Rushton, J. P. (2003). Brain size, IQ and racial-group differences: Evidence from musculoskeletal traits. Intelligence, 31(2), 139-155.

Samuda, R. J. (1998). Psychological testing of American minorities: Issues and consequences (2nd ed.). Yard Oaks, CA: Sage.

Samuda, R. J., Feuerstein, R., Kaufman, A. S., Lewis, J. Due east., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Advances in cross-cultural assessment. Yard Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sandoval, J., Frisby, C. 50., Geisinger, K. F., Scheuneman, J. D., & Grenier, J. R. (Eds.). (1998). Test interpretation and diversity: Achieving equity in assessment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Shade, B., Kelly, C., & Oberg, G. (1997). Creating culturally responsive classrooms. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Storti, C. (1998). The art of crossing cultures. Yarmouth, MN: Intercultural Press.

Suzuki, 50. A., Meller, P. J., & Ponterotto, J. 1000. (Eds.). (1996). Handbook of multicultural assessment: Clinical, psychological, and educational applications. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Talent and diversity: The emerging world of limited English skilful students in gifted education. Washington, DC: Author.

U.Southward. Section of Pedagogy. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC: Author.

U.South. Department of Education, National Middle for Education Statistics. (2003). Status and trends in the educational activity of Blacks. Washington, DC: Author.

i. This article is based on the monograph by Ford (2004) entitled Intelligence Testing and Cultural Multifariousness: Concerns, Cautions and Considerations, The National Enquiry Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.

2. Co-ordinate to the near contempo report past the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted and the National Clan for Gifted Children (2003), in 2001-2002, just 24 states mandate non-discriminatory testing in their gifted educational activity policies and procedures, while 18 study no such mandate (pp. 53-54). Further, several states written report using ane score to brand placement decisions (e.g., Arizona, Oregon, Ohio).

Back to Newsletter Manufactures Page