Research in Higher Education

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 173–183 | Cite as

A study of test speededness as a potential source of bias in the quantitative score of the Admission Test for Graduate Study in Business

  • Franklin R. Evans
  • Richard R. Reilly
Article

Abstract

Minority and majority groups were administered a special quantitative section of the Admission Test for Graduate Study in Business (ATGSB) under varying time conditions to determine if increasing the time allotted for the test would eliminate any bias that may exist due to an irrelevant speed factor. By a commonly employed definition, the special section was found to be moderately speeded for all candidates under normal time conditions. Neither the main effects due to time condition nor the interaction between the ethnic and time factors was statistically significant, suggesting that increasing the time per item does not reduce any bias that may exist in the test. Although a substantial proportion of minority group scores fell at or below the chance level, these appeared to retain fairly high levels of reliability.

Keywords

Minority Group Majority Group Education Research Substantial Proportion Time Condition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boldt, R. F. (1968). Study of linearity and homoscedasticity of test scores in the chance range. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 28: 47–60.Google Scholar
  2. Evans, F. R., and Reilly, R. R. (1972). A study of speededness as a source of test bias. Journal of Educational Measurement, 9(2): 123–131.Google Scholar
  3. Evans, S. H., and Anastasio, E. J. (1968). Misuse of analysis of covariance when treatment effect and covariate are confounded. Psychological Bulletin, 69: 225–234.Google Scholar
  4. Flaugher, R. L. (1970). “Testing Practices, Minority Groups, and Higher Education: A Review and Discussion of the Research.” Research Bulletin 70-41. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  5. Lord, F. M. (1967). A paradox in the interpretation of group comparisons. Psychological Bulletin, 68:304–305.Google Scholar
  6. Swineford, F. (1956). “Technical Manual for Users of Test Analyses.” Statistical Report 56-42. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  7. Thorndike, R. L. (1971). Concepts of culture-fairness. Journal of Educational Measurement, 8(2): 63–70.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© APS Publications, Inc. 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • Franklin R. Evans
    • 1
  • Richard R. Reilly
    • 1
  1. 1.Educational Testing ServicePrinceton

Personalised recommendations