Cited by 108Student Assessment and FeedbackEducational Assessment and PedagogyPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Education and distributive justice: Some reflections on grading systems.

Deutsch, Morton·1979·American Psychologist

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0003-066x.34.5.391

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 15 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Deutsch, M.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Deutsch, Morton
Venue
American Psychologist
Published
1979-05
Volume
34
Issue
5
Pages
391-401
ISSN
  • 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-990X
OpenAlex
W1978981303
Cited by
108
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
7.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
American Psychologist (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
grading system, distributive justice, educational equity, student assessment, grading practices

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review