Educators should consider how to respond to possible inequities in test performance revealed by validity analyses¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 3 claims (3 for) · 1 study (1 associational), q3 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 3 claims rest on one study

Description¶

The authors close by urging attention to the practical side of their finding: educators should consider how to respond to possible inequities in test performance that validity studies of this kind uncover. The strategy is to treat evidence of differential predictive validity as a prompt for institutional response rather than as a purely technical result. The article frames this as a discussion of possible responses rather than prescribing a specific intervention.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Requires validity evidence, such as the matched-sample and regression analyses reported here, identifying the inequity before a response can be designed.

Constraints¶

• The article presents this as a discussion of how educators might respond, not as a tested intervention.

Target Learners¶

• college-bound students, particularly women whose SAT-M scores may underpredict their college math performance

Target Learning Goals¶

• equitable use of admissions test scores in educational decision-making

Claims¶

• Prospective regression analysis of the same data found somewhat larger sex differences in the same direction [+W]
• The score gaps constitute evidence of sex differences in the validity of the SAT-M as a predictor of college math performance, though not of their cause [+W]
• Women scored about 33 SAT-M points lower than men who took the same math course and received the same grade [+W]

Related Strategies¶

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Howard Wainer, Linda Steinberg. (1992). Sex Differences in Performance on the Mathematics Section of the Scholastic Aptitude Test: A Bidirectional Validity Study. Harvard Educational Review. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.62.3.1p1555011301r133