Simulation Evaluating Disproportionality-Based Indicators of Inequitable Selection Practices Into Advanced Academic Programming

IF 3 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Peter Boedeker, K. Lamb, Todd Kettler
{"title":"Simulation Evaluating Disproportionality-Based Indicators of Inequitable Selection Practices Into Advanced Academic Programming","authors":"Peter Boedeker, K. Lamb, Todd Kettler","doi":"10.1177/00169862221106463","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Gifted education programs identify students with exceptional ability or potential and provide specialized educational interventions to develop general academic and domain-specific talent. Research and legal actions have found access to gifted education riddled with inequity. Indicators of inequity in selection practices based on disproportionality have been developed in the context of employment and gifted education; however, these indicators have not been compared side by side. We evaluate combinations of disproportionality-based metrics and thresholds on their ability to flag for inequity those selection practices that are indeed inequitable while not flagging for inequity those that are not. Specifically, the risk ratio and a generalized form of the Inequity Allowance Formula/Inequity Index, called here the inequity allowance ratio, are evaluated with thresholds between 0.1 and 0.9. We evaluate false-positive rates and true-positive rates when equity or inequity in selection practices exists. Furthermore, we explore the effect of program selectivity on the performance of these indicators. Ultimately, we find that recommendations regarding which disproportionality-based metric and threshold to use depends on factors that we cannot know, including the distribution of qualification of students and the quantifiable selectivity of a program. Therefore, the use of a disproportionality-based indicator when evaluating programs for potential inequity is not recommended.","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"331 1","pages":"316 - 329"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gifted Child Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862221106463","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Gifted education programs identify students with exceptional ability or potential and provide specialized educational interventions to develop general academic and domain-specific talent. Research and legal actions have found access to gifted education riddled with inequity. Indicators of inequity in selection practices based on disproportionality have been developed in the context of employment and gifted education; however, these indicators have not been compared side by side. We evaluate combinations of disproportionality-based metrics and thresholds on their ability to flag for inequity those selection practices that are indeed inequitable while not flagging for inequity those that are not. Specifically, the risk ratio and a generalized form of the Inequity Allowance Formula/Inequity Index, called here the inequity allowance ratio, are evaluated with thresholds between 0.1 and 0.9. We evaluate false-positive rates and true-positive rates when equity or inequity in selection practices exists. Furthermore, we explore the effect of program selectivity on the performance of these indicators. Ultimately, we find that recommendations regarding which disproportionality-based metric and threshold to use depends on factors that we cannot know, including the distribution of qualification of students and the quantifiable selectivity of a program. Therefore, the use of a disproportionality-based indicator when evaluating programs for potential inequity is not recommended.
模拟评估基于歧化的不公平选择实践指标进入高级学术规划
资优教育项目确定具有特殊能力或潜力的学生,并提供专门的教育干预,以培养一般的学术和特定领域的才能。研究和法律行动发现,获得天才教育的机会充满了不平等。在就业和资优教育的背景下,已经制定了基于不成比例的选择做法的不公平指标;然而,这些指标并没有被并排比较。我们评估了基于比例失调的指标和阈值的组合,这些指标和阈值能够标记那些确实不公平的选择实践,而不标记那些不公平的选择实践。具体来说,风险比和不平等允许公式/不平等指数的广义形式(这里称为不平等允许比率)的阈值在0.1和0.9之间进行评估。当公平或不公平的选择实践存在时,我们评估假阳性率和真阳性率。此外,我们探讨了程序选择性对这些指标的性能的影响。最终,我们发现,关于使用何种基于不成比例的度量和阈值的建议取决于我们无法知道的因素,包括学生资格的分布和项目的可量化选择性。因此,不建议在评估潜在不平等的项目时使用基于不均衡的指标。
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
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
29.00%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Gifted Child Quarterly (GCQ) is the official journal of the National Association for Gifted Children. As a leading journal in the field, GCQ publishes original scholarly reviews of the literature and quantitative or qualitative research studies. GCQ welcomes manuscripts offering new or creative insights about giftedness and talent development in the context of the school, the home, and the wider society. Manuscripts that explore policy and policy implications are also welcome. Additionally, GCQ reviews selected books relevant to the field, with an emphasis on scholarly texts or text with policy implications, and publishes reviews, essay reviews, and critiques.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信