Fairness Issues and Evaluation in Psychometrics and AI/ML: What Can We Learn from Each Field?

IF 2.9 2区 心理学 Q1 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS
Ying Cheng
{"title":"Fairness Issues and Evaluation in Psychometrics and AI/ML: What Can We Learn from Each Field?","authors":"Ying Cheng","doi":"10.1017/psy.2026.10110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Fairness in psychological and educational measurement has been a long-standing issue. Meanwhile, fairness is an issue that has been receiving an increasing amount of attention in the machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) community, particularly in the last decade. While there is some recognition by the AI/ML community of the early roots of fairness definitions and operational metrics in the testing context, especially the parallel between fairness in AI/ML and test fairness in a regression and prediction context, there has not been a systematic introduction about the rapidly developing research of AI/ML fairness and bias mitigation to the measurement professionals. There is an urgent need to build a shared foundation of fairness notions and criteria between the two fields, particularly given that AI/ML has started to play an ever increasingly important role in measurement and personnel selection. This article therefore draws parallel between the testing workflow and the AI/ML fairness paradigm, and explores the similarities and dissimilarities of fairness definitions and operational ways to evaluate fairness in both fields, as well as ways to address and mitigate bias. The exploration leads to a discussion of areas of future research, training, and collaborations.</p>","PeriodicalId":54534,"journal":{"name":"Psychometrika","volume":" ","pages":"1-22"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychometrika","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/psy.2026.10110","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Fairness in psychological and educational measurement has been a long-standing issue. Meanwhile, fairness is an issue that has been receiving an increasing amount of attention in the machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) community, particularly in the last decade. While there is some recognition by the AI/ML community of the early roots of fairness definitions and operational metrics in the testing context, especially the parallel between fairness in AI/ML and test fairness in a regression and prediction context, there has not been a systematic introduction about the rapidly developing research of AI/ML fairness and bias mitigation to the measurement professionals. There is an urgent need to build a shared foundation of fairness notions and criteria between the two fields, particularly given that AI/ML has started to play an ever increasingly important role in measurement and personnel selection. This article therefore draws parallel between the testing workflow and the AI/ML fairness paradigm, and explores the similarities and dissimilarities of fairness definitions and operational ways to evaluate fairness in both fields, as well as ways to address and mitigate bias. The exploration leads to a discussion of areas of future research, training, and collaborations.

心理测量学和AI/ML中的公平问题和评估:我们可以从每个领域学到什么?
心理和教育测量的公平性是一个长期存在的问题。与此同时,公平是一个在机器学习(ML)和人工智能(AI)社区受到越来越多关注的问题,尤其是在过去十年中。虽然AI/ML社区对测试环境中公平性定义和操作度量的早期根源有一些认识,特别是AI/ML中的公平性与回归和预测环境中的测试公平性之间的平行关系,但还没有系统地向测量专业人员介绍快速发展的AI/ML公平性和偏见缓解研究。迫切需要在两个领域之间建立公平概念和标准的共享基础,特别是考虑到人工智能/机器学习已经开始在测量和人员选择中发挥越来越重要的作用。因此,本文在测试工作流程和AI/ML公平范式之间进行了类比,并探讨了公平定义的异同,以及评估这两个领域公平的操作方法,以及解决和减轻偏见的方法。这一探索引发了对未来研究、培训和合作领域的讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychometrika
Psychometrika 数学-数学跨学科应用
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
72
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Psychometrika is devoted to the advancement of theory and methodology for behavioral data in psychology, education and the social and behavioral sciences generally. Its coverage is offered in two sections: Theory and Methods (T& M), and Application Reviews and Case Studies (ARCS). T&M articles present original research and reviews on the development of quantitative models, statistical methods, and mathematical techniques for evaluating data from psychology, the social and behavioral sciences and related fields. Application Reviews can be integrative, drawing together disparate methodologies for applications, or comparative and evaluative, discussing advantages and disadvantages of one or more methodologies in applications. Case Studies highlight methodology that deepens understanding of substantive phenomena through more informative data analysis, or more elegant data description.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书