AN EVALUATION OF SOME MODELS FOR CULTURE-FAIR SELECTION

By Nancy S. Petersen, M. R. Novick. 1976

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

50 Years of Test (Un)fairness: Lessons for Machine Learning (2018, methodology): “modeled using a parameter λ : where λ values of -1, 0, and 1 imply Darlington’s definitions (1), (2) Petersen and Novick [52] showed that ( 1 , 1 ) -Thorndikian fairness relaxations of ( λ , λ ) -Thorndikian fairness in which only one of the”
Algorithmic Bias in Education (2021, background): “…disagreed, that it was challenging to find a principled way to select between metrics, and broached the possibility that efforts towards the formalization of fairness might ultimately distract from more direct efforts to address societal problems of equity and justice (Petersen & Novick, 1976).”
Beyond Correlations: Usefulness of High School GPA and Test Scores in Making College Admissions Decisions (2013, background): “Petersen and Novick (1976) proposed computing an expected “threshold” (0/1) utility function in a Bayesian decision model.”
Determinants, Detection and Amelioration of Adverse Impact in Personnel Selection Procedures: Issues, Evidence and Lessons Learned (2001, background): “Petersen and Novick (1976) reviewed several models of test fairness.”
ETS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ITEM, TEST, AND SCORE FAIRNESS (2013, background): “Petersen and Novick (1976) compared several models for assessing fair selection, including the regression model (Cleary, 1968), the constant ratio model (Thorndike, 1971), the conditional probability model (Cole, 1973), and the constant probability model (Linn, 1973) in the lead article in a…”