Assessment Biai (Positions of Various Professional Groups Regarding Testing/Aisessment Practices)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 246 637 EC 170 029 AUTHOR Kratochwill, Thomas R.; Cancelli, Anthony A. TITLE Nonbiased Assessment in Psychology and Education. Volumes I and II. [Final Report]. INSTITUTION Arizona Univ., Tucson. Coll. of Education. SPONS AGENCY Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS), Washington, DC. PUB DATE Nov 82 GRANT G008100160 NOTE 603p. PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070) Reports Descriptive (141) EDRS PRICE MF03/PC25 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Disabilities; Elementary Secondary Education; 4 Evaluation Methods; History; Minority Groups; *Psychology; *Special Education; *StUdent Evaluation; *Test Bias; Testing; *Testing Problems; Test Interpretation; Test Use; Test Validity ABSTRACT The document presents findings from'a comprehensive review of the literature on the topic of nonbiased assessment. An introductory chapter describes the review's conceptual framework. Chapters 2 through 9 present analyses of the following major aspects of the topic (sample subtopics in parentheses): historical perspectives (ancient influences, nineteenth century developments, the emergence of differential psychology); conceptual models of human functioning (seven models of humeri behavior that influence contemporary assessment practices); technical test bias (implications of validation theory, external and internal construct bias); situational bias in psychologiCal assessment (test-wiseness, examiner sex and race, motivational factors); outcome bias(prediction of specific outcomes, selection versus intervention, a variety of selection models); proposed alternatives to traditional assessment (culture-reduced testing, renorming, adaptive behavior assessment, Piagetian assessment procedures,, learning potential assessment, clinical neuropsychological assessment, behavioral assessment strategies); ethical and legal considerations related to nonbiased assessment of children with learning and behavior problems (moral principles. invasion of privacy, consent, access to records, issues in intervention); and the influence of professional organizations on assessment biai (positions of various professional groups regarding testing/aisessment practices). A final chapter summarizes the state of the art; considers implications for decisonmaking in special education, and offers guidelines for practice. (CL) *********************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the bett that can be made * * from the original document. * *********************************************************************** This project has been funded at least in part with Federal funds from the Department of Education, Office of Special Education, uruier Grant Number 6008100160, Grant Authority CFDA: 84.023H. The contents of this publiu.tion do not nftwarily reflet the views or policies of tl r Department of Education, Office of Special Education, nor does mention of trade names, commerical products, or organizations imply endorsement by the P . Government. Nonbiased Assessment in Psychology and tducatift Vol. November, 1982 Thomas R. Kratochwill The University cf Arizona Anthony A. Cancelli Fordham University Table cf Contents Page 1 Chapter 1 Conceptual Framework Chapter 2 - Historical Perspectives on Assessment Bias 24 Chapter 3 - Conceptual Models of Human Functioning: Implications for Assessment Bias 56 Chapter 4 - Technical Test Bias 125 Chapter 5 - Situational Bias in Psyc'hLlogical Assessment 170 Chapter 6 Outcome Bias 218 Chapter 7 - Proiosed Alternatives to Traditional Assssment 269 Chapter 8 - P.oical, and Legal Considerations 384 \Chapter 9 - The Influence of Professional_nrgarizations 447 Chapter 10 - Current Status 472 References 489 Footnotes 593 di Asse,,sment Bias 1 Chaptei I Conceptual Fr,a,e4ork The use of psyAological and educational tet. Sias increased rapidly over the pasttew decades, This prolitcuation isin part dL:umented by the growth of the Buros' Mental Measurement Yearbook from 400 pages in 1938 to over 2,800 pages in 1978 (Haney, 1981). Many reasons can and hare teen offer -d tbir, growt4, Tt has been suggested that the growth of psychological testing may reflect an aspect of our mass society, specifically, a need for our institutions to deal with large numbers of individuals. With regard to the use of tests in education, Garcia (1981) concludes that pro- ponents of mental measurement believe that Tmleasuring human abilities by standardized tests would presumably increase educational productivity and sort the various grades of humar.s for their roles in the industrial society" (p. 1172). IA has also been suggested that the reason may, in part, be explained by the love affair that America has always had with technology and psychological testing is but one expression of that special devotion (Boorstein, 1974, cited in Haney, 1981). As Haney (1981) con- ° eludes, however, all the reasons offered foi why psychological and educa- tional testing has grown so rapidly, none attribute it to the increased ability of psychological science to better zeasure mental processes. Given the imnortance of social utility as an explanation for the growth of psycho- lw,ical testing rather than increased quality of the devices themSelves, it is no wonder why psychology often finds itself defensively engaged in $ research, after the fact, to demonstrate the utility of its tests in the face of public concern. One such concern that has been heard most vocif- .: (rously in recent years is the perceildd biased nature of these test when different t Assessmeut Bias 2 from those raHe! il;ain-:troam Anr,lo or docinant culture. in Norting thi, voluminous literature to identify the reasons for this concern, two is.mes stand out most n-ominently. Fir: it is ;11;.;gestedthat.011US ,ciery1!; highly sensitized to any institutionaliz,-(1 practices that result in a reduction of freedom of choice (Ha,y, 1981). When tests are employed to make decisions that may hold back individuals or groop trorl,;11;irint, whati'; Often referred to a "tho American dream", potential biases in that process that may reset in an - unwarranted denial of freedom are closely scrutinized. Cole (1981) points out thaC the concerns the public have towards psychological testing ultimately fo'Cts on the social policy decisions thatare made with the aid of these tests. The use of psycholical testing in the schools for the classification and placement of children in classes fv:the mentally handicapped serves as a case in point. Classes for the mentally handicapped have come' be known as c') classes having little academic emphasis, poor facilitAps, and inadequately trained teachers (McMillan, 1977). Given such a perspective, the use of psychological testing for placemeno: in tjhese.often called "dead-end" educa- tional tracks has received much scrutiny. This sensitivity combined witL the Riverside epidemiological studies in the early seventies (Mercer, 1970, 4973) highlighting the disproportional representation of culturally different children in these classes resulted in demonstrative outcries with the debate carrying over into the courts. A second reason for the public's concern for bias in testing lies in the implications that are inherent in the measured differencesbetween culturally different children and those from the dominant Anglo culture (Reschly, 1981). Psychological tests are primarily designed to measure Assestiment Bias 3 I nho I 4'10 test! construct . Consegii-nt 1 y, one imp I c lt 11111 in t he de', ign Ott purported to be valieid is that voliotion in performance connote', 'lit it in the measured construct. Such an implication would lead on'' to the in- evitable conclusion th;:t culturally dPierent children, A /1""P; Arc capable than Anglo childrOn. Whin dealing with a constrict such as iutelli- gence that has long been viewed as a characc..i .tic heavily influenced by genetic endowment, one can appreciate the re.um for the concerns of the public irding the potential bias in tefttin The stigma atti.ched to labeling a dispcoporti Aate number of culturally different inc:, .C,tals retarded and the perceived insulting nature of a premature conclusion that .-oup of people is less intelligent than another is not only cause for concern but to some, reprehensible, in response to concerns for potential bias in testing, there ire those who conclude that mean differences, across groups is enough to sub,.ntiiAte charges of bias (Alley & Foster, 1978; Chinn, 197c: 1979; Jackson, 1 1975; Mercer, 1976, Williams, 1974). For example, Alley and roster (1978) concluck that for tests to be nonbiased, they need to yield equivalent distributions of scores across groups. Otkers have studied the quest)Jo of bias by examining both tests and the assessment process in an effort to determine if measured group differences are "real" differences. Some have focused on bias in the technical validityjsense, some have looked at bias ; as a function of situational factorinherent in testing settings, while others have focused on potential bas in the assessment process within, which testing is Often an integral part. Still others'tslme addressed concerns for bias by devoting their efforts Askroposing and examining alcernative meth,xls to traditional testing f. AnnesmOnt itias 4 plarticiY; th;itputpi,t( to ho oilhor inhrontly nol,hiat:ed clitotiott- reterenced tostin0 or implovomont:t to pro!tout pt.otice (o.g., renorming) In addit ion to re.,earch ctlort,., . ny-product ofthe public's concer. has been the evolutiiat o!a literature related to thejudicial tnd legislative impact of possible