我的考试公平吗?

IF 3.2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Denis G. Dumas, Yixiao Dong, Daniel M. McNeish
{"title":"我的考试公平吗?","authors":"Denis G. Dumas, Yixiao Dong, Daniel M. McNeish","doi":"10.1027/1015-5759/a000724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. The degree to which test scores can support justified and fair decisions about demographically diverse participants has been an important aspect of educational and psychological testing for millennia. In the last 30 years, this aspect of measurement has come to be known as consequential validity, and it has sparked scholarly debate as to how responsible psychometricians should be for the fairness of the tests they create and how the field might be able to quantify that fairness and communicate it to applied researchers and other stakeholders of testing programs. Here, we formulate a relatively simple-to-calculate ratio coefficient that is meant to capture how well the scores from a given test can predict a criterion free from the undue influence of student demographics. We posit three example calculations of this Consequential Validity Ratio (CVR): one where the CVR is quite strong, another where the CVR is more moderate, and a third where the CVR is weak. We provide preliminary suggestions for interpreting the CVR and discuss its utility in instances where new tests are being developed, tests are being adapted to a new population, or the fairness of an established test has become an empirical question.","PeriodicalId":48018,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychological Assessment","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Fair Is My Test?\",\"authors\":\"Denis G. Dumas, Yixiao Dong, Daniel M. McNeish\",\"doi\":\"10.1027/1015-5759/a000724\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract. The degree to which test scores can support justified and fair decisions about demographically diverse participants has been an important aspect of educational and psychological testing for millennia. In the last 30 years, this aspect of measurement has come to be known as consequential validity, and it has sparked scholarly debate as to how responsible psychometricians should be for the fairness of the tests they create and how the field might be able to quantify that fairness and communicate it to applied researchers and other stakeholders of testing programs. Here, we formulate a relatively simple-to-calculate ratio coefficient that is meant to capture how well the scores from a given test can predict a criterion free from the undue influence of student demographics. We posit three example calculations of this Consequential Validity Ratio (CVR): one where the CVR is quite strong, another where the CVR is more moderate, and a third where the CVR is weak. We provide preliminary suggestions for interpreting the CVR and discuss its utility in instances where new tests are being developed, tests are being adapted to a new population, or the fairness of an established test has become an empirical question.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48018,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Psychological Assessment\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Psychological Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000724\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000724","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要几千年来,考试成绩在多大程度上支持对人口统计学上不同的参与者做出合理和公平的决定,一直是教育和心理测试的一个重要方面。在过去的30年里,测量的这一方面被称为结果效度,它引发了关于心理测量学家应该如何对他们创建的测试的公平性负责,以及该领域如何能够量化这种公平性,并将其传达给应用研究人员和测试项目的其他利益相关者的学术辩论。在这里,我们制定了一个相对简单的计算比率系数,旨在捕捉给定测试的分数在不受学生人口统计数据不当影响的情况下预测标准的程度。我们假设了三个计算结果效度比(CVR)的例子:一个CVR很强,另一个CVR比较温和,第三个CVR很弱。我们为解释CVR提供了初步建议,并在正在开发新测试、测试正在适应新人群或既定测试的公平性已成为实证问题的情况下讨论其效用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Fair Is My Test?
Abstract. The degree to which test scores can support justified and fair decisions about demographically diverse participants has been an important aspect of educational and psychological testing for millennia. In the last 30 years, this aspect of measurement has come to be known as consequential validity, and it has sparked scholarly debate as to how responsible psychometricians should be for the fairness of the tests they create and how the field might be able to quantify that fairness and communicate it to applied researchers and other stakeholders of testing programs. Here, we formulate a relatively simple-to-calculate ratio coefficient that is meant to capture how well the scores from a given test can predict a criterion free from the undue influence of student demographics. We posit three example calculations of this Consequential Validity Ratio (CVR): one where the CVR is quite strong, another where the CVR is more moderate, and a third where the CVR is weak. We provide preliminary suggestions for interpreting the CVR and discuss its utility in instances where new tests are being developed, tests are being adapted to a new population, or the fairness of an established test has become an empirical question.
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
6.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: The main purpose of the EJPA is to present important articles which provide seminal information on both theoretical and applied developments in this field. Articles reporting the construction of new measures or an advancement of an existing measure are given priority. The journal is directed to practitioners as well as to academicians: The conviction of its editors is that the discipline of psychological assessment should, necessarily and firmly, be attached to the roots of psychological science, while going deeply into all the consequences of its applied, practice-oriented development.
×
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