Bias in Testing

Bias in testing represents a critical concern within the realm of school psychology, as it profoundly influences the accuracy and fairness of assessments used to understand students’ abilities and needs. This comprehensive article explores the multifaceted issue of bias in testing within the context of school psychology. It delves into the various forms of bias, including content, cultural, language, and socioeconomic biases, discussing their implications for assessment outcomes and the ethical considerations they entail. The article further addresses strategies for mitigating bias throughout the assessment process, from test development to interpretation and reporting. Ethical responsibilities and the evolving role of school psychologists in promoting equitable assessment practices are also examined. As challenges and controversies in the field persist, this article underscores the ongoing significance of recognizing and addressing bias in testing to ensure fair and accurate assessments in school psychology practice.

Introduction

Bias in testing is a pivotal concern within the realm of school psychology, as it profoundly influences the accuracy and fairness of assessments used to understand students’ abilities and needs. This section provides a foundational understanding of bias in testing, its historical context, and an overview of the objectives and structure of this article.

Definition of Bias in Testing and Its Significance in School Psychology

Bias in testing refers to the presence of systematic errors or distortions in the administration, scoring, or interpretation of assessments that lead to unfair advantages or disadvantages for particular groups of individuals (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], & National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 2014). In the context of school psychology, where assessments are integral to understanding and supporting students’ educational and psychological well-being, bias can have far-reaching implications.

The significance of addressing bias in testing within school psychology lies in its potential to perpetuate educational disparities and hinder accurate identification and intervention for students from diverse backgrounds (Laurent & Myers, 2011). When assessments are biased, they may fail to provide a clear picture of a student’s true abilities and needs, leading to misdiagnosis, inappropriate placement, or limited access to essential services.

Historical Context: How Bias in Testing Has Evolved Over Time

The historical trajectory of bias in testing reflects societal and cultural changes. Early intelligence testing in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, exemplified by Alfred Binet’s work, was designed to identify intellectual abilities and potential. However, these tests were heavily influenced by the social norms and biases of the time, often resulting in the labeling of certain groups as “inferior” (Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Kidd, 2005).

The Civil Rights Movement in the mid-20th century brought attention to the discriminatory practices associated with biased assessments. Landmark legal cases, such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954), underscored the need for fair and equitable testing practices in education. Subsequent legislation, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, further emphasized the importance of nondiscriminatory assessment (Ysseldyke & Bolstad, 2013).

Despite these historical strides, bias in testing remains a complex and evolving issue. Contemporary assessments must consider cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic diversity to ensure fairness and accuracy in educational decision-making.

Overview of the Article’s Objectives and Structure

This article is structured to provide a comprehensive exploration of bias in testing within school psychology. It will delve into the various forms of bias, including content, cultural, language, and socioeconomic biases, and discuss their implications for assessment outcomes. Strategies for mitigating bias throughout the assessment process, from test development to interpretation and reporting, will be examined. Ethical responsibilities and the evolving role of school psychologists in promoting equitable assessment practices will also be addressed. Challenges and controversies in the field will be discussed to underscore the ongoing significance of recognizing and addressing bias in testing. The subsequent sections will offer an in-depth examination of these topics to equip school psychologists with the knowledge and tools necessary to navigate this critical aspect of their profession.

Types of Bias in Testing

Bias in testing can manifest in various forms, each of which has unique implications for assessment outcomes. This section explores the four primary types of bias in testing: Content Bias, Cultural Bias, Language Bias, and Socioeconomic Bias.

Content Bias

Definition and Explanation: Content bias occurs when the content of a test is more familiar or relevant to one group of individuals than to another, leading to differential performance due to prior exposure or experiences (Reynolds & Suzuki, 2012). For example, a mathematics test that includes word problems related to Western cultural contexts may disadvantage students from non-Western backgrounds who are less familiar with such scenarios.

Examples of Content Bias in Commonly Used Tests: One illustrative example is the use of idiomatic expressions in language assessments. Such expressions may be challenging for English language learners whose primary language does not include similar idioms.

Impact on Assessment Outcomes: Content bias can lead to inaccurate assessments of an individual’s abilities or knowledge. Students who are more familiar with the content are likely to perform better, while those less familiar may perform below their actual capabilities.

Cultural Bias

Definition and Explanation: Cultural bias in testing refers to the presence of cultural elements in assessments that advantage some cultural groups while disadvantaging others (Dana, 2018). This bias can stem from differences in cultural norms, values, or experiences between the test-takers and the creators of the test.

The Role of Culture in Testing: Culture profoundly influences an individual’s cognitive and socio-emotional development, shaping their worldview, communication styles, and problem-solving approaches (Helms, 2008). When cultural aspects are not considered in test design, they can lead to cultural bias.

Strategies for Addressing Cultural Bias in Testing: To address cultural bias, it is essential to use culturally inclusive test materials and language. This may involve revising test content, providing clear instructions, and offering culturally diverse response options. Additionally, utilizing culturally competent test administrators and interpreters can help ensure fair assessment (LaFromboise & Howard-Pitney, 1995).

Language Bias

Definition and Explanation: Language bias in testing arises when language-related challenges, such as linguistic complexity or unfamiliar vocabulary, hinder a test-taker’s performance. This bias can particularly affect individuals who are non-native speakers of the test language.

Language-Related Challenges in Testing: Language bias can manifest through items that require advanced vocabulary or complex sentence structures. Such challenges may disproportionately impact individuals with limited proficiency in the test language, potentially resulting in underestimation of their abilities (Hakuta & D’Andrea, 1992).

Approaches to Minimize Language Bias: Minimizing language bias involves careful test design that considers the linguistic proficiency of the target population. Test developers can simplify language, provide clear instructions, and offer translations or accommodations for non-native speakers. Moreover, it is crucial to distinguish language proficiency from the construct being measured and to interpret scores with linguistic considerations in mind (Harklau, 2003).

Socioeconomic Bias

Definition and Explanation: Socioeconomic bias in testing emerges when a test’s content or format systematically favors individuals from higher socioeconomic backgrounds, leading to performance disparities based on economic status (Duckworth et al., 2012).

How Socioeconomic Status Can Affect Testing Outcomes: Socioeconomic status (SES) can influence a person’s access to educational resources, experiences, and support systems. Tests that assume uniform exposure to specific experiences may inadvertently disadvantage individuals from lower SES backgrounds.

Strategies to Mitigate Socioeconomic Bias: To mitigate socioeconomic bias, test developers should strive for fairness by considering diverse socioeconomic backgrounds when designing assessments. This may involve selecting examples and contexts that are relevant to a broader range of experiences. Additionally, accommodations or contextual information that clarifies questions can help level the playing field for individuals from varying SES backgrounds (Horn, 2008).

Addressing bias in testing, whether content, cultural, language, or socioeconomic, is essential for school psychologists to ensure equitable assessment practices and fair evaluations of students from diverse backgrounds. Recognizing and minimizing these biases is a vital step toward achieving the fundamental goal of providing every student with an equal opportunity to demonstrate their true abilities and potential.

Impact of Bias on Assessment Outcomes

Bias in testing can have far-reaching consequences, affecting individuals, educational systems, and society as a whole. This section examines how bias in testing can lead to misdiagnosis and underrepresentation of certain groups, educational disparities, limited access to appropriate services, and discusses the ethical implications associated with biased assessments.

Misdiagnosis and Underrepresentation of Certain Groups

One of the most significant consequences of bias in testing is the potential for misdiagnosis and the underrepresentation of certain groups. When assessments are biased, they may inaccurately portray an individual’s true abilities or needs. For example, a test that exhibits cultural bias may underestimate the intelligence of a student from a non-dominant cultural background, leading to a misdiagnosis of learning disabilities or intellectual deficits (Reynolds & Suzuki, 2012).

This misdiagnosis can result in a cascade of negative effects. Students who are misdiagnosed may not receive the support and interventions they genuinely require. This can lead to frustration, decreased motivation, and a sense of inadequacy, ultimately impacting their educational and psychological well-being (Coutinho & Oswald, 2014). Furthermore, misdiagnosis can perpetuate stereotypes and contribute to the stigmatization of specific cultural or linguistic groups (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002).

Educational Disparities

Bias in testing can also exacerbate educational disparities. When assessments are biased against certain groups, it can lead to unequal access to educational opportunities. Students from marginalized backgrounds may be disproportionately placed in lower educational tracks, mislabeled as having special needs, or denied access to gifted and talented programs (Ford & Grantham, 2003).

These disparities can have lifelong consequences. Students who are unfairly disadvantaged by biased assessments may not have the chance to reach their full potential, and educational inequalities can persist into adulthood, affecting future employment and socioeconomic status (Grissom & Redding, 2016). Therefore, addressing bias in testing is a critical step toward achieving equitable educational outcomes.

Limited Access to Appropriate Services

Bias in testing can also limit access to appropriate services and interventions for those who genuinely require them. When assessments yield biased results, students who should receive specialized support may not qualify, leaving them without the resources necessary to succeed (Kamphaus & Frick, 2005).

This limitation in access to services can be particularly detrimental to students with disabilities. Misclassification due to bias can prevent them from receiving Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) or related services, denying them the tailored support needed to overcome challenges and reach their educational goals (Hale & Fiorello, 2004).

The Ethical Implications of Biased Assessments

The ethical implications of biased assessments are profound. School psychologists and educators have a moral and professional obligation to provide fair and equitable assessment practices that respect the dignity and worth of all individuals (American Psychological Association [APA], 2017). Bias in testing runs counter to these principles.

Using biased assessments may violate the principles of justice and fairness, which are core ethical values in psychology (APA, 2017). Failing to recognize and address bias can undermine the trust that students, parents, and the community place in the educational system. It can also contribute to feelings of discrimination, injustice, and disillusionment among individuals who experience the adverse effects of bias in testing (Grisso & Schwartz, 2017).

Additionally, the misuse of assessments that exhibit bias can result in legal and professional consequences. School districts and educational institutions may face legal challenges when biased assessments are used inappropriately (Ysseldyke & Algozzine, 2006). Therefore, recognizing and mitigating bias is not only an ethical imperative but also a legal and professional responsibility in the field of school psychology.

In conclusion, bias in testing has profound consequences on individuals and society at large. Misdiagnosis, educational disparities, limited access to services, and ethical concerns are all direct results of biased assessments. School psychologists play a crucial role in recognizing and addressing bias to ensure fair, equitable, and ethical assessment practices that promote the well-being and success of all students.

Addressing Bias in Testing

Addressing bias in testing is a critical imperative for ensuring that assessments accurately reflect the abilities and needs of all students. This section explores strategies to mitigate bias during test development, standardization procedures during test administration, and guidelines for interpreting test results and reporting them in a culturally sensitive manner.

Test Development

Strategies for Minimizing Bias During Test Development: Bias reduction begins with the creation of assessment tools. Test developers should adopt strategies that minimize bias. Some key strategies include:

• Diverse Item Development: Test developers should ensure that items are created or selected to represent a broad range of cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic backgrounds. By diversifying item content, assessments become more inclusive (Reynolds & Suzuki, 2012).
• Item Review: Implementing an item review process by experts from diverse backgrounds can help identify potential sources of bias. These experts can assess the cultural, linguistic, and content relevance of items (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002).
• Pilot Testing: Prior to finalizing an assessment, pilot testing should be conducted with a diverse sample of test-takers. This allows developers to identify and address any items that may exhibit bias during real-world administration (Hambleton & Zenisky, 2011).
• Cognitive Interviews: Cognitive interviews with students from various backgrounds can help identify language or comprehension issues in items. Test developers can then make adjustments to ensure clarity and fairness (Sireci & Faulkner-Bond, 2014).

Ensuring Representation of Diverse Groups: A diverse development team that includes individuals from different cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic backgrounds can help ensure that assessments are sensitive to these factors (LaFromboise & Howard-Pitney, 1995). Collaboration with experts in multicultural assessment can also be invaluable in addressing bias during the development phase.

Test Administration

Standardization Procedures: Standardization is a critical phase of test administration. To minimize bias during this phase, test administrators should adhere to standardized procedures rigorously. Standardization ensures consistency and fairness across all test administrations. Detailed guidelines on administration protocols, timing, and scoring should be provided and followed consistently (Hale & Fiorello, 2004).

Accommodations and Fairness Considerations: Accommodations are essential for ensuring that individuals with disabilities or linguistic differences can access and demonstrate their true abilities on assessments. School psychologists and educators should be well-versed in providing appropriate accommodations that do not compromise test validity but enable all students to participate fully (Schulte, Osborne, & Ervin, 2018). Fairness considerations involve monitoring for any unexpected challenges or issues that may arise during test administration and addressing them promptly and equitably.

Interpretation and Reporting

Guidelines for Interpreting Test Results: Interpreting test results involves considering the potential sources of bias and their impact on individual scores. School psychologists should be trained to recognize when bias may have influenced test outcomes. Interpretation guidelines should emphasize the importance of considering multiple sources of data, not relying solely on test scores, and recognizing the limitations of assessments (Ford & Grantham, 2003).

Reporting Results in a Culturally Sensitive Manner: When conveying assessment results, school psychologists should do so in a culturally sensitive manner. This means considering the cultural and linguistic background of the student and their family. It may involve providing explanations in the student’s native language or using culturally appropriate terms to describe assessment outcomes (Dana, 2018). Culturally sensitive reporting fosters understanding and collaboration between school professionals and families.

In conclusion, addressing bias in testing is a multifaceted process that encompasses test development, administration, interpretation, and reporting. Strategies for minimizing bias during test development, such as diverse item development and pilot testing, are essential. Standardization procedures during test administration ensure fairness and consistency. Moreover, providing accommodations for diverse needs and adhering to guidelines for interpreting and reporting test results are crucial steps in promoting equitable and unbiased assessment practices. By embracing these strategies, school psychologists can contribute to a more inclusive and just educational system.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations play a central role in addressing bias in testing within the field of school psychology. School psychologists have a profound responsibility to ensure fairness, equity, and the ethical treatment of all students. This section delves into the ethical responsibilities of school psychologists in addressing bias, underscores the importance of fairness and equity in assessment practices, and highlights the role of ethical guidelines and codes of conduct in guiding their actions.

Ethical Responsibilities of School Psychologists in Addressing Bias

School psychologists hold ethical obligations to promote fairness, equity, and social justice in their professional practice (American Psychological Association [APA], 2017). Addressing bias in testing aligns closely with these ethical principles. School psychologists are tasked with recognizing and mitigating bias to ensure that assessments do not discriminate against or disadvantage any student based on their cultural, linguistic, or socioeconomic background.

One of the primary ethical responsibilities is to advocate for the rights and well-being of all students. This includes identifying and challenging biased assessment practices that may perpetuate disparities and hinder access to appropriate educational services (Ford & Grantham, 2003). School psychologists must be vigilant in recognizing when assessments may be unfair or biased and take proactive steps to rectify the situation.

Importance of Fairness and Equity in Assessment Practices

Fairness and equity in assessment practices are essential ethical principles for school psychologists to uphold. Fairness implies that all students should have an equal opportunity to demonstrate their abilities and potential without interference from bias or discrimination (APA, 2017). Equity extends this principle by recognizing that different students may require different supports or accommodations to access the same opportunities.

School psychologists must strive to create assessment environments that are inclusive and sensitive to students’ diverse backgrounds. This includes providing appropriate accommodations for students with disabilities, ensuring that language differences do not hinder assessment, and minimizing cultural bias in testing materials (Schulte, Osborne, & Ervin, 2018).

Moreover, school psychologists should be vigilant against unintended consequences of assessment practices. While assessments are tools for understanding students, their results can have significant implications for placement, services, and self-esteem. Ensuring fairness and equity in assessment practices means taking into account the broader context in which assessments are conducted and results are used.

The Role of Ethical Guidelines and Codes of Conduct

Ethical guidelines and codes of conduct provide critical guidance for school psychologists in their efforts to address bias in testing. The APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2017) offers clear directives on issues related to assessment, fairness, and social responsibility.

These guidelines emphasize the importance of respecting the dignity and worth of all individuals, promoting social justice, and striving for equitable assessment practices. School psychologists are encouraged to recognize and rectify any biases or discrimination they encounter and to advocate for fair and unbiased assessment practices within their educational institutions.

Furthermore, professional organizations, such as the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), provide resources and support to school psychologists in their ethical decision-making and practice. School psychologists are encouraged to stay informed about evolving ethical standards and best practices related to assessment and bias reduction.

In conclusion, ethical considerations are at the heart of addressing bias in testing within the field of school psychology. School psychologists have ethical responsibilities to promote fairness, equity, and social justice in assessment practices. Upholding these principles means recognizing and mitigating bias, advocating for students’ rights, and adhering to ethical guidelines and codes of conduct. By embracing these ethical obligations, school psychologists play a pivotal role in creating a more inclusive and equitable educational system for all students.

Challenges and Controversies

Addressing bias in testing is not without its challenges and controversies within the field of school psychology. This section explores the difficulties faced by school psychologists in addressing bias, controversies related to test validity and fairness, ongoing debates, and potential solutions to these complex issues.

Challenges Faced by School Psychologists in Addressing Bias

1. Identification of Bias: Identifying bias in testing can be a subtle and complex process. Some biases are overt and easily recognized, while others are more subtle and require a deep understanding of cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic factors. School psychologists must continuously educate themselves to recognize these biases (Reynolds & Suzuki, 2012).
2. Resource Constraints: Many school districts face resource constraints, limiting their ability to invest in comprehensive bias review processes or the development of culturally sensitive assessments. School psychologists may struggle to implement best practices due to limited resources.
3. Balancing Assessment Objectives: School psychologists must strike a delicate balance between assessing a student’s abilities accurately and mitigating bias. The challenge lies in ensuring that assessments are both culturally fair and still capable of providing meaningful and accurate information (Dana, 2018).

Controversies Related to Bias in Testing

1. Test Validity: Debates persist regarding the validity of tests that have historically exhibited bias. Critics argue that biased assessments may not accurately measure the constructs they purport to assess. This controversy challenges the utility of such tests and raises questions about their overall validity (Sireci & Faulkner-Bond, 2014).
2. Fairness vs. Equality: The distinction between fairness and equality in assessments is a subject of controversy. While fairness requires providing equitable opportunities, some argue that it may involve unequal treatment to account for the unique needs of certain groups. Striking the right balance between these principles is an ongoing debate (LaFromboise & Howard-Pitney, 1995).
3. Sensitivity vs. Specificity: Bias reduction efforts may inadvertently impact the sensitivity and specificity of assessments. Attempting to minimize false positives (incorrectly identifying bias) can lead to false negatives (failing to identify actual bias). This trade-off poses a challenge in determining the appropriate level of bias reduction (Schulte, Osborne, & Ervin, 2018).

Ongoing Debates in the Field and Potential Solutions

1. Universal vs. Culturally Specific Assessments: A prominent debate centers on whether universal assessments with broad cultural applicability are more effective, or if assessments should be tailored to specific cultural or linguistic groups. Striking a balance by using universal assessments as a baseline while allowing for culturally specific adaptations when necessary can address this issue (Hale & Fiorello, 2004).
2. The Role of Socioeconomic Status: Controversy surrounds the role of socioeconomic status in assessment outcomes. While it is a critical factor, determining how much it should influence assessment practices is an ongoing debate. One solution is to consider SES as a potential confounding variable while ensuring that assessments remain fair and equitable for students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds (Grissom & Redding, 2016).
3. Continual Assessment Improvement: To address challenges and controversies, school psychologists must prioritize ongoing assessment improvement. This involves collaborating with diverse stakeholders, conducting regular bias reviews, and staying informed about the latest research and best practices. Embracing a growth mindset within the profession is essential (APA, 2017).

In conclusion, addressing bias in testing is a complex and multifaceted endeavor that presents challenges and controversies within the field of school psychology. Recognizing and mitigating bias requires vigilance, resources, and ongoing education. Controversies related to test validity, fairness, and trade-offs in assessment practices demand careful consideration and thoughtful solutions. School psychologists must remain engaged in these debates and actively work toward enhancing the fairness and equity of assessments to better serve all students.

Future Directions

As the field of school psychology continues to evolve, it is crucial to consider the future directions and emerging trends in addressing bias in testing. This section explores these emerging trends, the evolving role of school psychologists in promoting equitable assessment practices, and concludes with a summary of the ongoing importance of addressing bias in testing within the field of school psychology.

Emerging Trends in Addressing Bias in Testing

The future of addressing bias in testing in school psychology holds several promising trends:

1. Advancements in Assessment Technology: Emerging technologies, such as computer-adaptive testing and artificial intelligence, offer opportunities to create more dynamic and personalized assessments that can minimize bias (Thissen & Wainer, 2001). These technologies can adapt assessments based on individual responses, ensuring a better fit with students’ abilities and backgrounds.
2. Culturally Responsive Assessment: The recognition of the importance of culturally responsive assessment continues to grow. Culturally responsive assessments acknowledge and respect the cultural backgrounds of students, reducing the risk of cultural bias (Liu, 2019). This trend emphasizes the need for school psychologists to collaborate with culturally diverse communities to develop assessments that accurately reflect students’ abilities.

The Evolving Role of School Psychologists

The role of school psychologists is evolving to encompass a more proactive and inclusive approach to assessment practices:

1. Advocacy and Education: School psychologists are becoming advocates for equitable assessment practices within their school districts. They are increasingly involved in educating teachers, administrators, and policymakers about the importance of addressing bias in testing and providing guidance on best practices.
2. Collaboration: Collaboration with diverse stakeholders, including parents, educators, and community members, is becoming integral to the role of school psychologists. Collaborative efforts help identify and rectify biased assessment practices, ensuring that a variety of perspectives are considered (Grissom & Redding, 2016).

Conclusion

In conclusion, addressing bias in testing is an ongoing and evolving challenge within the field of school psychology. The importance of recognizing and mitigating bias cannot be overstated. It is essential not only for the ethical and fair treatment of students but also for the accurate assessment of their abilities and needs.

As the field progresses, school psychologists must remain vigilant, adapt to emerging trends and technologies, and continue to advocate for fairness and equity in assessment practices. By doing so, they contribute to a more inclusive and just educational system where all students have equal opportunities to thrive and succeed.

The work of school psychologists in addressing bias in testing is an essential component of promoting educational equity. It ensures that assessments are not obstacles but rather tools for understanding and supporting the diverse range of students in today’s schools. As the field moves forward, the commitment to unbiased, culturally sensitive, and equitable assessment practices remains a cornerstone of effective school psychology.

References:

1. American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], & National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME]. (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. American Educational Research Association.
2. Artiles, A. J., & Ortiz, A. A. (2002). English Language Learners with Special Education Needs: Identification, Placement, and Assessment. Future of Children, 12(1), 123-139.
3. Coutinho, M. J., & Oswald, D. P. (2014). A Three-Tiered Assessment Model for Culturally Diverse Gifted Students: A Multi-Informant, Multi-Method Approach. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(4), 363-392.
4. Dana, R. H. (2018). Multicultural Assessment: Principles, Applications, and Examples. Routledge.
5. Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P. D., Lynam, D. R., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2012). Role of Test Motivation in Intelligence Testing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(2), 717-722.
6. Ford, D. Y., & Grantham, T. C. (2003). Providing Access for Culturally Diverse Gifted Students: From Deficit to Dynamic Thinking. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 217-225.
7. Grisso, T., & Schwartz, R. G. (2017). Youth Disciplinary Hearings: Legal and Psychological Perspectives on Due Process in Action. Oxford University Press.
8. Hale, J. B., & Fiorello, C. A. (2004). School Neuropsychology: A Practitioner’s Handbook. The Guilford Press.
9. Hakuta, K., & D’Andrea, D. (1992). Some Properties of Bilingual Maintenance and Loss in Mexican Background High-School Students. Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 72-99.
10. Hambleton, R. K., & Zenisky, A. L. (2011). An Exploratory Review of Multigroup DIF Methods With the Logistic Regression Procedure in Assessing Differential Item Functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 35(1), 49-67.
11. Harklau, L. (2003). Navigating ESL and Content Teachers: Collaboration and Conflict in Urban High Schools. Routledge.
12. Helms, J. E. (2008). The Tripartite Model of Racial and Ethnic Identity: Theory and Measurement. In H. A. Neville, B. M. Tynes, & S. O. Utsey (Eds.), Handbook of African American Psychology (pp. 77-92). Sage Publications.
13. Kamphaus, R. W., & Frick, P. J. (2005). Clinical Assessment of Child and Adolescent Personality and Behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.
14. Laurent, A. C., & Myers, D. M. (2011). Testing and Assessment: An Employed Model for School Psychologists. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 26(3), 185-203.
15. Liu, W. M. (2019). Culturally Responsive Assessment and Psychotherapy. In The Oxford Handbook of Multicultural Identity (pp. 135-153). Oxford University Press.
16. LaFromboise, T. D., & Howard-Pitney, B. (1995). The Zuni Life Skills Development Program: A School/Community-Based Suicide Prevention Intervention. The American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 6(3), 154-165.
17. Reynolds, C. R., & Suzuki, L. A. (2012). Bias in Psychological Assessment: An Empirical Review and Recommendations. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. Van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Research Methods in Psychology (pp. 143-165). Cambridge University Press.
18. Schulte, A. C., Osborne, J. W., & Ervin, R. A. (2018). The Role of Student Variables in the Assessment Accommodations Decision-Making Process. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 43(4), 222-233.
19. Sireci, S. G., & Faulkner-Bond, M. (2014). Validity Evidence Based on Test Content. In The Oxford Handbook of Multicultural Identity (pp. 120-134). Oxford University Press.
20. Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Kidd, K. K. (2005). Intelligence, Race, and Genetics. American Psychologist, 60(1), 46-59.
21. Ysseldyke, J., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Special Education: A Practical Approach for Teachers. Allyn & Bacon.
22. Ysseldyke, J., & Bolstad, O. D. (2013). Assessment in Special and Inclusive Education. Cengage Learning.