Methodological Rigor and Justice in Language Assessment: Correcting the Course A Response to Owen and Xu’s “Maintaining Methodological Rigor in Language Assessment: A Response to Randall et al.’s Justice-Oriented Antiracist Validity Framework”
Scholarly commentary clarifies the justice-oriented antiracist validity framework in language assessment, highlighting its integration with traditional validity theory.
Key Points
To respond to critiques by Owen and Xu regarding the Justice-Oriented Antiracist Validity (JAV) framework and to clarify its theoretical foundations, methodology, and global applicability.
Conceptual and epistemological critique responding directly to published counterarguments.
Integration of measurement frameworks including Kane's interpretation-use argument and Mislevy's sociocognitive foundations.
Application of critical quantitative orientations (QuantCrit) and sociohistorical contextualization to assessment systems.
Clarified that JAV serves as an extension of existing validity theory rather than a complete replacement or an incremental repair.
Demonstrated that QuantCrit represents an epistemological orientation toward the interpretation of quantitative evidence rather than a standalone statistical method.
Emphasized the necessity of situating assessment practices within historical power dynamics and expanding beyond North American frameworks using principled assessment design.