49 Seton Hall L. Rev. 679 (2018-2019)
Test Validity: Faster Is Not Necessarily Better

handle is hein.journals/shlr49 and id is 679 raw text is: 

       Test   Validity: Faster is Not Necessarily Better

                                Ruth Colker*

      This Article  argues  that we   should  change   the default  rule for
standardized  testing: Test developers should  not be allowed  to implement
speeded  exams  that adversely impact individuals with disabilities unless test
developers  can validate the time limits. Applying principles developed under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the Americans  with Disabilities
Act,  test developers   should  need   to demonstrate   that  a  speeded,
standardized  exam  is a valid predictor of the desired skills and abilities, and
that  no  less-impactful alternative, such  as  a  non-speeded   exam,   is
available to measure   those skills and abilities. The shifting of the default
rule  to non-speeded   exams   would  mark   the implementation   of a  new,
universal  design  principle that  would  make   standardized  testing more
equitable for a range of people, including racial minorities, women,  people
with  low  socio-economic   status, older applicants,  and  individuals with
disabilities. Testing entities should devise  non-speeded   exams   that can
validly measure  the skills and abilities of the entire applicant pool, rather
than continue to place the burden on people with disabilities to meet onerous
and  expensive standards  to request extended  time.  This solution is novel,
simple, and fair.

* Distinguished University Professor and Heck-Faust Memorial Chair in Constitutional Law,
Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University. I would like to thank Moritz Law
Librarian Stephanie Ziegler for her assistance in collecting some of the sources cited in this
Article, Ric Simmons, Jasmine Harris, Dan Tokaji, Dakota Rudesill, Sasha Samberg-
Champion, Nancy Mathers, and David Levine for their helpful feedback on an earlier draft,
and Professor Guy Rub for administering a survey to our students about their experiences
taking the LSAT. I would also like to thank the faculty at University of California, Davis,
and the Moritz College of Law for their helpful comments at a faculty workshop. Finally, I
would like to thank the staff at the Law School Admissions Council who met with me on June
20, 2018, to discuss many of the ideas presented in this Article and are currently considering
a grant proposal to assess the validity of the speeded aspect of the LSAT.


What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.

Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?