Fairness in Measurement and Selection: Statistical, Philosophical, and Public Perspectives

Abstract

Selection decisions have a major impact on our education, occupation, and quality of life, and the role of standardized tests in selection has always been a source of controversy. Here, I consider various definitions of fairness in measurement and selection-those emerging from within educational measurement and statistics, those from philosophy, and finally, those from the public. I use examples of public challenges to selection practices to illustrate the fact that technical and philosophical definitions of fairness do not align well with public concerns. I emphasize the importance of promoting awareness of existing standards, advocating for the fair use of testing and selection practices, and communicating in a candid and straightforward way when engaging with test takers and test users.

Examining the validity of chiropractic grade point averages for predicting National Board of Chiropractic Examiners Part I exam scores

“…According to Zwick, 31 Anastasi 32 and Einhorn and Bass 33 were first to point out that ''two groups can have identical regression equations but unequal residual variances. In this situation, members of 2 groups will have the same predicted criterion score for all values of the predictor but will not have the same probability of exceeding a cut point on the criterion.''…”

NCME Presidential Address 2021: Assessment Research and Practice in the Post‐COVID‐19 Era

“…2020 is a year that will be written into history not only because of the COVID‐19 pandemic, but also because of the long‐overdue heightened attention to social injustice and inequality. For the measurement field, it is exciting that we are seeing more and more attention paid to equity and justice in assessment practices (Randall, 2021; Koljatic et al., 2021; Zwick, 2019).…”

Commentary: Comment on College Admissions Tests and Social Responsibility

“…In contrast, the pushback against the testing industry typically includes the assertion that the use of the ACT and SAT is in and of itself a cause of socially unjust outcomes. KSS also ignore (or at least do not present) changes that the College Board and ACT, Inc. have implemented over their histories to be more attentive to issues of equity and fairness, 1 and it might have been a good idea to at least give a cursory hat tip to the numerous important contributions the former president of NCME, Rebecca Zwick, has made to the thinking on this topic (e.g., Zwick, 2004, 2006, 2017, 2019a, 2019b).…”