For most of the 20th century, measurement professionals paid little interest to item and test fairness. A confluence of events in the late 1960s and early 1970s led to an intense interest in fairness issues among measurement professionals. In spite of more than 30 years of effort, there is still no generally accepted definition of fairness with respect to testing and no measure that can prove or disprove the fairness of a test. To advance the fairness of tests, measurement professionals must pay more attention to reducing group differences at the design stage of test development, to providing all examinees an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and skills, to deterring test misuse, and to accommodating differences among individuals.

No abstract

No abstract

The borderline‐group method and the contrasting‐groups method were each compared with Nedelsky's method at four schools and with Angoff's method at another four schools, using tests of basic skills in reading and mathematics. The borderline‐group and contrasting‐groups methods produced similar results when approximately equal numbers of students were classified as masters and nonmasters. The contrasting‐groups passing score was lower than the borderline‐group passing score when masters greatly outnumbered nonmasters; higher when nonmasters outnumbered masters. Results involving the Nedelsky and Angoff methods were not consistent across schools. Passing scores tended to be higher at schools where students were more able.

No abstract