Recently, more attention has been given to the need for culturally and linguistically responsive assessments, but little empirical work has examined how writing measures treat students’ use of nonmainstream American English (NMAE). Guided by Dis/ability Critical Race Theory and Quantitative Critical Race Theory, this study interrogated potential linguistic bias in curriculum-based measurement in written expression. Specifically, we analyzed the correct minus incorrect writing sequences (CIWS) metric, which is widely used to monitor writing development but is normed on general American English conventions. A total of 428 compositions from students in Grades 3 to 5 were scored using both the original CIWS rules and a culturally responsive, modified set of rules designed to not penalize NMAE features. Multilevel models revealed that students whose writing included NMAE features received disproportionately lower scores under the original scoring system, even when controlling for writing productivity. The modified procedure significantly reduced this bias, producing scores that supported more equitable interpretation of students’ writing without penalizing NMAE features. Findings provide empirical evidence that conventional CIWS scoring embeds linguistic bias, but that responsive scoring modifications can mitigate these inequities. This work advances linguistic justice in assessment and offers practical implications for educators, school psychologists, and speech-language pathologists.
Johnson et al. (Wed,) studied this question.