We are excited to announce our featured speaker sessions for this year’s Innovations in Testing Conference! Check back as we will be adding more sessions.
Psychological assessment scales, such as the WISC-IV and Bailey-III, are very powerful comprehensive tools for assessing children’s development delays. Some issues, however, arise when using translated psychological assessment scales across different cultures. For example, a study in China conducted using the Bayley Scale of Infant and Toddler Development concluded that more than 53% of children in the less developed countryside of China are developmentally delayed in cognitive skills or have intellectual disability. The conclusion seems to defy common sense, as the international average is only around 16% (1 standard deviation below the mean of IQ scores). Other independent studies in China using different clinical scales with local and national norms indicated that the corresponding percentage ranges from 10%-16% only. This paper will discuss the issues encountered when using translations of clinical assessment scales in different cultures and their impact on the scale's construct, items, and norms. Key Words: Clinical Assessment; Bayley Scale of Infant and Toddler Development; intellectual disability.
Speaker(s): Dr. Zhiming Yang, Hunnan Normal University, China
This panel brings together experts in artificial intelligence and assessment to consider the likely benefits of using AI within assessment to make decisions about people and also the possible pitfalls. Although artificial intelligence promises advancements in precision, efficiency, cost reduction and unbiased data-driven decision-making, AI systems also present many challenges. The challenges of AI include the potential for privacy intrusion, discriminatory or biased outcomes, legal and ethical risks in how AI-derived data is used and decisions are made. These potential benefits and risks apply when using AI for all types of assessment, including certification, licensure, employment selection, educational and psychological testing. Given the importance of fairness and validity to the assessment community and the increasing use of AI in assessment systems and processes, understanding how to thoughtfully navigate these issues has never been more important. In this context, the panelists will discuss the following questions during this session:
Speaker(s): John Kleeman, Questionmark; Marc Weinstein, Marc J. Weinstein, PLLC and Caveon, LLC; Alina von Davier, Duolingo; Ken Johnston, Microsoft
The challenges that the testing industry is facing in terms of the backlash against testing, can be effectively addressed, not be defending testing for the sake of the tests, but because the tests themselves are the entryway to solutions. Whether it be in Education, offender risk management, employment testing or any other kind of testing programs. If all we do is continue to defend testing for the sake of testing, we are fighting a losing battle. The answer lies in focusing on the real value of assessments - providing insight into challenges faced by individuals and using those insights to create real and meaningful solutions at both the individual and the organizational level.
Speaker(s): Hazel Wheldon, MHS; Kimberly Nei, Hogan
Due to COVID19, and the fact that students were not in schools, all accountability testing was canceled in the spring of 2020. Some states have indicated their desire to also suspend accountability testing in the spring of 2021 and have asked the US Department of Education for a waiver under the requirements of ESSA. Many schools continue to administer -- often remotely at home -- interim assessments and other low-stakes assessments that have typically been used only for diagnosis and prescription. There have been opinions expressed for years that aggregating the results of low stakes assessments can be used for accountability in lieu of high-stakes summative assessments administered on demand in the spring of each year. Publishers and administers of high-stakes summative assessments are concerned that canceling their administration, or making their administration optional, for two years in a row would spell the end of a very large segment of the assessment business. A more important concern is that many experts in measurement question whether aggregating the results of interim and formative assessments can replace the quality of information that comes from on-demand summative assessments that are designed specifically for that purpose. This session will address the concerns on both sides of that argument, and its short-term and long-term effect on the educational assessment industry.
Speaker(s): John Oswald, The Oswald Group; Scott Marion, Center for Assessment; Dirk Mattson, Curriculum Associates; JT Lawrence, Cambium Assessments
Artificial intelligence and biometrics have offered employers new tools for security, hiring, training, and promotion. At the same time, advocates have raised concerns that these tools erode privacy and create bias that may discriminate against protected classes.
In testing, AI and biometrics have offered testing programs enhanced tools for securing test content, protecting the integrity of the testing process, and identifying examinees. How will the legal issues that employers face play out in the testing arena? The reality is, incorporating these tools potentially increases hard and soft costs and may raise potential legal issues, including privacy and discrimination concerns. In fact, use of AI in the workforce continues to be scrutinized from a legal perspective in connection with privacy and discrimination issues, with predictions of more litigation in the future. Experienced legal and security professionals will share their experiences and review the practical benefits offered by AI and biometrics for exam security, discuss the risks and limitations of the current use of this technology, and address sometimes unanticipated costs associated with incorporating these tools. This session will address security and privacy issues in the workforce and lessons learned in that space for testing, as well as opportunities and considerations for expanding the use of AI in testing.
Speaker(s): Donna McPartland, McPartland Privacy Advising; Jennifer Semko, Baker McKenzie; Camille Thompson, The College Board
Ask EU DPOs for 2 association member organizations about their roles, how companies can utilize their services more effectively, what they see as potential stumbling blocks with ever-evolving privacy and data security concerns, repercussions of the invalidation of Privacy Shield, SCCs, and more...
Speaker(s): Joseph Srouji, Prometric; Laura Stoll, Hogrefe
Security and privacy incidents often include both legal and public relations implications, and potentially even more so as testing programs have rapidly shifted to remote testing in response to the global pandemic. The reality is that any incident may be judged not only in the court of law, but also the court of public opinion, and results may differ. In fact, it is entirely possible to win in the court of law, but lose in the court of public opinion. Every testing program should be familiar with the legal remedies and defenses available to them in protecting their program, as well as philosophies and activities available in engaging with others through traditional and social media. Join legal and media relations experts as they discuss these issues and reflect on the lessons learned over the past 12 months to prepare testing organizations to “face the courts.”
Speaker(s): Rachel Schoenig, Cornerstone Strategies; Sarah Pauling, Examity; Stephanie Dille, ProctorU; Jennifer Semko, Baker McKenzie