Despite the recent emergence of test optional and/or test flexible programs, wherein students do not need to, or can decide whether they want to submit their standardized test scores such as SAT/ACT for admission consideration (Belasco, Rosinger, & Hearn, 2014; Syverson, 2007), these standardized admission tests continue to play an important role in college choice, access, and admission decisions. These tests are also typically used as inputs for indices that predict students’ likelihood of continuation and eventual graduation. In addition, states with generous merit-based grants and scholarships (such as Tennessee and Georgia) use these tests as an important component of eligibility to receive this financial award. Taken together then, these facts indicate that standardized test scores do not only impact access to selective institutions, but also play a prominent role in financial-aid eligibility, hence impacting the academic prospects of hundreds of thousands of high school graduates every year.
Standardized admissions tests originally intended to provide a “‘common currency’ that allows admissions officers … to place students on the same footing” (Garvey, 1981, p. 1) when applying to college, regardless of demographic characteristics such as race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. Nonetheless, there have been concerns of bias that result in unexplained differences in standardized test results among test-takers who have similar ability levels and only differ by socio-demographic grounds (Gierl & Khaliq, 2001; Kruse, 2016). These unexplained differences are commonly referred to as cultural bias (Kruse, 2016) and have been attributed to problems in the design and interpretation of tests (Brown, Reynolds, & Whitaker, 1999; Kruse, 2016).
In the design part, the prevalence of designers of White, well-educated, middle/upper middle backgrounds arguably led to the development of questions and or tasks that reflected ethnic and racial attributes of similar test-takers’ cosmovision rather than those of non-White and less privileged backgrounds who have been traditionally referred to as underserved test-takers (e.g., minoritized, first-generation, and underrepresented in higher education students). This flaw in the design-side translated into underserved test-takers being more likely to attain lower scores than their White and/or more privileged counterparts given racial and cultural pre-dispositions that went over and above differences in scholastic aptitudes. In the interpretation phase, reasoning skill tasks, and or analogies addressed by underserved test-takers yielded lower scores given the evaluators’ (and or designers serving as evaluators) cultural and/or racial pre-conceptions or cosmovisions that, once more, had no relation with underserved test-takers scholastic abilities. This negative loop or vicious circle explains that “concerns of equity and social justice for the students taking these tests have risen” (Kruse, 2016, p. 23) in past decades.
These concerns and criticisms motivated research aiming to surpass such potential biases (Freedle, 2003). For example, in 2005 the College Board decided to redesign the SAT to focus more on students’ academic preparation than on reasoning skills and removed analogies and quantitative-comparison problems (Epstein, 2009) that could be affected by these cultural differences. Notably, these changes led to today’s standing of these tests as being considered robust to these problems, which incidentally also led to their increased weight and presence in access and merit aid-eligibility, as evidenced by their continued use as “unbiased” independent predictors of scholastic ability, aptitude, and eventual academic success.
Have We Transcended Cultural Bias in Standardized Testing?
The framework of concentrated advantages or disadvantages based on individuals’ location (Elijah, 1990; Jargowsky & Tursi, 2015; Pacione, 1997) argues that individuals’ prospects for mobility are affected by their places of origin given the divergent forms of access (or lack of access) to resources. Although this framework is frequently employed in disciplines and fields of study, such as sociology, urban studies, geopolitics, it has yet to be critically utilized to assess the extent to which variation in standardized scores occurs as a function of test-takers’ proximal location. From this view, methodological perspectives such as spatial analyses employed in conjunction with this conceptual framework of concentrated advantages/disadvantages may prove useful to assess and problematize factors directly affecting the social reproduction of inequality given participants’ location.
What is Gained by Looking in the Right Space?
