Validity Arguments Meet Artificial Intelligence in Innovative Educational Assessment

Article Status
Published
Authors/contributors
Title
Validity Arguments Meet Artificial Intelligence in Innovative Educational Assessment
Abstract
Abstract We have dramatically advanced our ability to create rich, complex, and effective assessments across a range of uses through technology advancement. Artificial Intelligence (AI) enabled assessments represent one such area of advancement—one that has captured our collective interest and imagination. Scientists and practitioners within the domains of organizational and workforce assessment have increasingly used AI in assessment, and its use is now becoming more common in education. While these types of solutions offer their users the promise of efficiency, effectiveness, and a “wow factor,” users need to maintain high standards for validity and fairness in high stakes settings. Due to the complexity of some AI methods and tools, this requirement for adherence to standards may challenge our traditional approaches to building validity and fairness arguments. In this edition, we review what these challenges may look like as validity arguments meet AI in educational assessment domains. We specifically explore how AI impacts Evidence‐Centered Design (ECD) and development from assessment concept and coding to scoring and reporting. We also present information on ways to ensure that bias is not built into these systems. Lastly, we discuss future horizons, many that are almost here, for maximizing what AI offers while minimizing negative effects on test takers and programs.
Publication
Journal of Educational Measurement
Volume
59
Issue
3
Pages
267-271
Date
09/2022
Journal Abbr
J. Educ. Meas.
Language
en
ISSN
0022-0655, 1745-3984
Accessed
13/05/2024, 16:15
Library Catalogue
DOI.org (Crossref)
Extra
Citation Key: dorsey2022
Citation
Dorsey, D. W., & Michaels, H. R. (2022). Validity Arguments Meet Artificial Intelligence in Innovative Educational Assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 59(3), 267–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12331
Powered by Zotero and Kerko.