2026/02/03 by Nathaniel Owen, Haiyan Xu · 1 voice
Arts and Humanities · Decision Sciences · Social Sciences · #EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning #Psychometric Methodologies and Testing #Student Assessment and Feedback
paper · doi:10.1177/02655322261416901
openalex publication_date 2026/02/03 · openalex created_date 2026/02/06 · openalex updated_date 2026/06/28
Recent proposals to reorient validity theory toward justice through a Justice-oriented Antiracist Validity (JAV) framework have sparked vigorous debate in educational and language assessment. While the JAV approach seeks to disrupt systemic inequities by centering antiracist principles and critical quantitative methodologies, its rejection of traditional validity models raises profound philosophical and methodological concerns. In this viewpoint, we respond to Randall et al. by arguing that maintaining rigorous, falsifiable approaches to validation remains essential for meaningful progress toward fairness and justice. We examine historical, ethical, and methodological limitations of the JAV framework, highlight practical challenges in operationalizing its principles across diverse contexts, and question the viability of QuantCrit as an analytic stance. We conclude by advocating for a pluralistic, collaborative profession that acknowledges critical perspectives without abandoning the methodological rigor essential for equitable assessment.