资优教育的高风险能力测试遗产:使用鉴定方法使不平等永久化

IF 1.7 Q2 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Marcia Gentry, O. Desmet, Sareh Karami, Hyeseong Lee, Corinne Green, Alissa Cress, Aakash A. Chowkase, A. Gray
{"title":"资优教育的高风险能力测试遗产:使用鉴定方法使不平等永久化","authors":"Marcia Gentry, O. Desmet, Sareh Karami, Hyeseong Lee, Corinne Green, Alissa Cress, Aakash A. Chowkase, A. Gray","doi":"10.1080/02783193.2021.1967545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this article, we reviewed how intelligence tests were developed and normed, with a careful eye to underserved groups. Based on state recommendations, five group-administered and five individually-administered tests were reviewed for demographics; invariance testing; validity and reliability reporting; and gifted identification suitability. We found only one test included Indigenous youth in their sample; only one test reported racial group means; only two provided internal consistency estimates for different subgroups; and only four reported group invariance testing. Therefore, we concluded that tests developed on samples that omit those to which results are applied, or tests that are developed without regard to how the test functions across different groups should not be used to make high stakes decisions about gifted identification.","PeriodicalId":46979,"journal":{"name":"Roeper Review-A Journal on Gifted Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gifted Education’s Legacy of High Stakes Ability Testing: Using Measures for Identification That Perpetuate Inequity\",\"authors\":\"Marcia Gentry, O. Desmet, Sareh Karami, Hyeseong Lee, Corinne Green, Alissa Cress, Aakash A. Chowkase, A. Gray\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02783193.2021.1967545\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In this article, we reviewed how intelligence tests were developed and normed, with a careful eye to underserved groups. Based on state recommendations, five group-administered and five individually-administered tests were reviewed for demographics; invariance testing; validity and reliability reporting; and gifted identification suitability. We found only one test included Indigenous youth in their sample; only one test reported racial group means; only two provided internal consistency estimates for different subgroups; and only four reported group invariance testing. Therefore, we concluded that tests developed on samples that omit those to which results are applied, or tests that are developed without regard to how the test functions across different groups should not be used to make high stakes decisions about gifted identification.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46979,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Roeper Review-A Journal on Gifted Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Roeper Review-A Journal on Gifted Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2021.1967545\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Roeper Review-A Journal on Gifted Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2021.1967545","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

摘要

在这篇文章中,我们回顾了智力测试是如何发展和规范的,并仔细关注了服务不足的群体。根据各州的建议,对五种集体管理和五种个人管理的测试进行了人口统计审查;不变性测试;效度和信度报告;以及天赋识别的适宜性。我们发现只有一项测试将土著青年纳入样本;只有一项测试报告了种族群体的平均值;只有两个提供了不同亚组的内部一致性估计;只有四个报告了组不变性测试。因此,我们得出的结论是,在样本上开发的测试忽略了那些应用结果的测试,或者在不考虑测试如何在不同群体中发挥作用的情况下开发的测试,不应该用于对天才识别做出高风险的决定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Gifted Education’s Legacy of High Stakes Ability Testing: Using Measures for Identification That Perpetuate Inequity
ABSTRACT In this article, we reviewed how intelligence tests were developed and normed, with a careful eye to underserved groups. Based on state recommendations, five group-administered and five individually-administered tests were reviewed for demographics; invariance testing; validity and reliability reporting; and gifted identification suitability. We found only one test included Indigenous youth in their sample; only one test reported racial group means; only two provided internal consistency estimates for different subgroups; and only four reported group invariance testing. Therefore, we concluded that tests developed on samples that omit those to which results are applied, or tests that are developed without regard to how the test functions across different groups should not be used to make high stakes decisions about gifted identification.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
33
×
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