but the reasons for these differences are an ongoing source o f controversy. One popular and longstanding claim is that mean differences are caused by "cultural bias" in the tests. Arthur Jensen exhaustively review ed the empirical literature on the issue o f test bias, which resulted in his seminal book, B ias in M en ta l Testing (BIM T), published in 1980. On the basis o f empirical criteria for evaluating test bias, Jensen con cluded that standardized aptitude/ability tests predict equally w ell for American-born, Eng lish-speaking majority and minority subgroups and measure similar constructs. This paper summarizes the major conclusions from BIM T and evaluates writing on test bias published since BIMT. W e conclude that empirical research to date consistently finds that standardized cognitive tests are not biased in terms o f predictive and construct validity. Furthermore, con tinued claim s o f test bias, which appear in academic journals, the popular media, and som e p sychology textbooks, are not empirically justified. T hese claim s o f bias should be met with skepticism and evaluated critically according to established scientific principles.The interpretation of mean differences in mental test scores for native-born, Eng lish-speaking ethnic/racial subgroups is a source of major professional and public controversy (e.g., Jacoby & Glauberman, 1995). According to the cultural test bias The authors thank Len L ecci and an anonym ous review er for helpful com m ents on an earlier draft, and Craig Frisby for his thoughtful discussion s, suggestions, and great tolerance during d evelopm ent o f this article. The authors o f course accept responsibility for all content. A ddress corresp on d en ce to either R obert T. B row n , D epartm ent o f P sy c h o lo g y , U N C W , W ilm ington, NC 2 8 4 0 3 -3 2 9 7 (brow n@ uncw il.edu) or C ecil R. R eynolds, Department o f Educational P sych ology, Texas A & M U niversity, C ollege Station, TX 7 7 8 4 3 -4 2 2 5 (crrh@ bluebon.net).