Test Fairness Framework

2.6 Test Fairness Framework and Models

There are different approaches which have been suggested to investigate fairness. Although, the test fairness framework, proposed by Kunnan (2004), is the central attention of this study since this model has been at the head of notice in test fairness for several years. As (Baharloo 2013)sited, Kunnan (2010) puts forward an ethics-inspired rationale for his framework and claims that this model considers the whole testing system, not only the test itself, hence it seems to be more comprehensive than the other existing models. Kunnan’s (2004) framework was the first attempt made to “propose an overarching framework for fairness research” in language testing (Xi, 2010, p. 150). Kunnan in his last work assumed

They should also explain the procedures needed for administrating and scoring tests appropriately and fairly and test users should inform test takers about their responsibilities and rights, the nature and purpose of the test, the appropriate use of test results, and procedures used for resolving challenges encountered in the evaluation process cited in (Baharloo, 2013). Finally, Kunnan’s test fairness framework mainly focuses on group differences and the kind of bias that may stem from test takers’ membership in different groups, but it does ignore the important issue of individual differences. Cole and Zieky (2001) state that, “all testing data show far more individual variation of scores within groups than variation between groups. Individual variation, not group variation, is the dominant influence on scores and should therefore be the dominant fairness concern”(p. 11).Thus regarding to the aspects mentioned above, it can be understand that this model is not practical enough to gain test fairness in its all senses. In this regard Xi (2010) believes that establishing a fairness framework that would be useful for practical purposes requires primary attention to the conceptualization of

The evidence or grounds or data that support the claim 3. The warrant(s ) or principle or authority or reasoning connecting the evidence to the claim 4. The backing or reasons or assurances or theory 5. If necessary for warrants 6. And the rebuttal(s) or exception(s) to the