the follow-up used WISC-R or WAIS-R. Weinberg, Scarr and Waldman point describe the effect of this change in test: Furthermore, the data needed to be corrected for the Flynn effect as stated by Ulrich Neisser: The data corrected for the Flynn effect was published in 2000 by John Loehlin in the Handbook of Intelligence.The data showed mixed adoptees scoring lower than white adoptees with gaps of 6.1 and 8.3 points at ages 7 and 17, while black adoptees scored 20.1 and 17.8 points below white adoptees at ages 7 and 17. The analysis of structured interviews at age 7 and 17 reported by (DeBerry, Scarr & Weinberg 1996) found that about half of the studied black adopted children had adjustment difficulties. They had difficulties becoming competent in both European and African-American reference group orientation but had stronger affinity with the European than with the African-American group. Stronger identification with one or the other group predicted better adjustment. Interpretations Scarr & Weinberg (1976) interpreted the results from age 7 suggesting that racial group differences in IQ are inconclusive because of confounding in the study. They noted, however, that the study indicated that cross-racial adoption had a positive effect on black-adopted children. In support of this interpretation, they drew special attention to the finding that the average IQ of "socially classified" black children was greater than that of the U.S. white mean. The follow-up data were collected in 1986, and Weinberg et al. published their findings in 1992; they interpreted their results as still supporting the original conclusions. Both Levin and Lynn argued that the data support a hereditarian alternative - that the mean IQ scores and school achievement of each group reflected their degree of African ancestry. For all measures, the children with two black parents scored lower than the children with one black and white parent, who in turn scored lower than the adopted children with two white parents. Both omitted discussion of Asian adoptees. Waldman, Weinberg, and Scarr responded to Levin and Lynn. They noted that the data taken of adoption placement effects can explain the observed differences but that they cannot make that claim firmly because the pre-adoption factors confounded racial ancestry, preventing an unambiguous interpretation of the results. They also note that Asian data fit that hypothesis while being omitted by both Levin and Lynn. They argued that, "contrary to Levin's and Lynn's assertions, results from the