Abstract
In her review of the intellectual effects of family factors, Steelman sought to evaluate the intellectual effects of sibship size and birth order. Her empirical review of these effects is wanting because (a) it is selective and incomplete, (b) it ignores systematic aggregate effects, (c) it imposes linear analysis on non-monotone relationships, and (d) it disregards most of the confounds identified by Steelman herself as crucial. Using nothing more than the results of her meta-analysis of the two family factors, Steelman sought next to assess the validity of the confluence model. Yet the proper evaluation of the confluence model requires not a meta-analysis of family influences but the calculation of predicted values that can be checked against data. This Steelman failed to do. Rather than clarifying the research issues on this important topic, Steelman succeeded only in promoting confusion.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.