基于论证的公平性及其在人工智能增强教育评估中的应用

IF 1.4 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
A. Corinne Huggins-Manley, Brandon M. Booth, Sidney K. D'Mello
{"title":"基于论证的公平性及其在人工智能增强教育评估中的应用","authors":"A. Corinne Huggins-Manley,&nbsp;Brandon M. Booth,&nbsp;Sidney K. D'Mello","doi":"10.1111/jedm.12334","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The field of educational measurement places validity and fairness as central concepts of assessment quality. Prior research has proposed embedding fairness arguments within argument-based validity processes, particularly when fairness is conceived as comparability in assessment properties across groups. However, we argue that a more flexible approach to fairness arguments that occurs outside of and complementary to validity arguments is required to address many of the views on fairness that a set of assessment stakeholders may hold. Accordingly, we focus this manuscript on two contributions: (a) introducing the argument-based fairness approach to complement argument-based validity for both traditional and artificial intelligence (AI)-enhanced assessments and (b) applying it in an illustrative AI assessment of perceived hireability in automated video interviews used to prescreen job candidates. We conclude with recommendations for further advancing argument-based fairness approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":47871,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Measurement","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Toward Argument-Based Fairness with an Application to AI-Enhanced Educational Assessments\",\"authors\":\"A. Corinne Huggins-Manley,&nbsp;Brandon M. Booth,&nbsp;Sidney K. D'Mello\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jedm.12334\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The field of educational measurement places validity and fairness as central concepts of assessment quality. Prior research has proposed embedding fairness arguments within argument-based validity processes, particularly when fairness is conceived as comparability in assessment properties across groups. However, we argue that a more flexible approach to fairness arguments that occurs outside of and complementary to validity arguments is required to address many of the views on fairness that a set of assessment stakeholders may hold. Accordingly, we focus this manuscript on two contributions: (a) introducing the argument-based fairness approach to complement argument-based validity for both traditional and artificial intelligence (AI)-enhanced assessments and (b) applying it in an illustrative AI assessment of perceived hireability in automated video interviews used to prescreen job candidates. We conclude with recommendations for further advancing argument-based fairness approaches.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47871,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Educational Measurement\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Educational Measurement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jedm.12334\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jedm.12334","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

教育测量领域将有效性和公平性作为评估质量的核心概念。先前的研究已经提出在基于论证的有效性过程中嵌入公平论证,特别是当公平被认为是跨群体评估属性的可比性时。然而,我们认为,为了解决一组评估利益相关者可能持有的许多关于公平性的观点,需要一种更灵活的方法来解决有效性论点之外的公平性论点并与之互补。因此,我们将本文的重点放在两个方面:(a)引入基于论证的公平性方法,以补充传统评估和人工智能(AI)增强评估的基于论证的有效性;(b)将其应用于用于预筛选求职者的自动视频面试中感知可雇佣性的说明性AI评估。最后,我们提出了进一步推进基于论证的公平方法的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Toward Argument-Based Fairness with an Application to AI-Enhanced Educational Assessments

The field of educational measurement places validity and fairness as central concepts of assessment quality. Prior research has proposed embedding fairness arguments within argument-based validity processes, particularly when fairness is conceived as comparability in assessment properties across groups. However, we argue that a more flexible approach to fairness arguments that occurs outside of and complementary to validity arguments is required to address many of the views on fairness that a set of assessment stakeholders may hold. Accordingly, we focus this manuscript on two contributions: (a) introducing the argument-based fairness approach to complement argument-based validity for both traditional and artificial intelligence (AI)-enhanced assessments and (b) applying it in an illustrative AI assessment of perceived hireability in automated video interviews used to prescreen job candidates. We conclude with recommendations for further advancing argument-based fairness approaches.

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
2.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: The Journal of Educational Measurement (JEM) publishes original measurement research, provides reviews of measurement publications, and reports on innovative measurement applications. The topics addressed will interest those concerned with the practice of measurement in field settings, as well as be of interest to measurement theorists. In addition to presenting new contributions to measurement theory and practice, JEM also serves as a vehicle for improving educational measurement applications in a variety of settings.
×
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