{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026449643947100712, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004069175991861648, 'mean_word_length': 4.788235294117647, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Merit, Equity, and Test Validity

The U.S. Supreme Court's Johnson v. Transportation Agency ruling in 1987 has rekindled the merit versus equity debate. In particular, it has encouraged reassessment of some of the debate's underlying assumptions which led many to argue that equity compromises merit. This article critically examines one of those assumptions, namely, that test validation produces good indicators of merit. In effect; many argue that if a woman or minority scores lower than a White male on a "valid" job-related exam but is nonetheless hired, merit is sacrificed. To demonstrate the flaws in this type of reasoning, the underlying biases of test validation are explored. A case is presented on the validation of physical strength tests for protective service jobs. The article concludes that because of these biases, test validation cannot be relied on to operationalize merit. To the extent that it is relied on, the pursuit of merit as well as equity is deterred.