CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 199Psychometric Methodologies and TestingEducational Assessment and PedagogyEducational Technology and Assessment

ANOTHER LOOK AT “CULTURAL FAIRNESS”1

DARLINGTON, RICHARD B.·1971·Journal of Educational Measurement
DOI 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1971.tb00908.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Four definitions of “cultural fairness” are examined and found to be not only mutually contradictory (for reasons which are explained), but all based on the false view that optimum treatment of cultural factors in test construction or test selection can be reduced to completely mechanical procedures. If a conflict arises between the two goals of maximizing a test's validity and minimizing the test's discrimination against certain cultural groups, then a subjective, policy‐level decision must be made concerning the relative importance of the two goals. The terms in which this judgment should be made are described, and methods are described for entering the result of this judgment into mechanical procedures for constructing a “culturally optimum” test. Such a test will not necessarily fit any of the four definitions of “cultural fairness.”

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1971.tb00908.x

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Much of the early literature into fairness considered regression and correlation-based scenarios, compared to the recent emphasis on classification.

    “It is noteworthy that much of the early literature into fairness considered regression and correlation-based scenarios (standardized test scores, see e.g., [81]), compared to the recent emphasis on classiication (binary decisions).”

    From Fairness in machine learning: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [81]

  • The general notions from early fairness literature transfer to (binary) classification settings and define essential concepts such as protected/demographic variables, notions of group vs individual fairness, impossibility conditions between fairness conditions, and metric-based fairness quantification.

    “However, the general notions transfer to (binary) classiication settings and thus deine essential concepts such as protected/demographic variables (e.g.[72,73]), notions of group vs individual fairness (e.g.[257,278]), impossibility conditions between fairness conditions ( [81]), and metric-based fairness quantiication (e.g., true positive rates, [74]).”

    From Fairness in machine learning: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [81]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
DARLINGTON, R. B.
Affiliations
Cornell University (US)
Corresponding author
DARLINGTON, RICHARD B.
ORCID
DARLINGTON, RICHARD B.
Venue
Journal of Educational Measurement
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1971-06
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
71-82
ISSN
  • 0022-0655 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-3984
DOI
10.1111/j.1745-3984.1971.tb00908.x
OpenAlex
W2055851514
Cited by
199
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
13.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 12522 d)
Locations
Journal of Educational Measurement (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and Assessment
Keywords
cultural fairness, test development, test selection, test validity, cultural bias in testing

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