{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04433497536945813, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012315270935960592, 'mean_word_length': 5.4523809523809526, '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}}
Epistemic Oppression, Construct Validity, & Scientific Rigor: Commentary on ‘Bias, Fairness, & Validity in Graduate Admissions: A Psychometric Perspective’ (Accepted Manuscript Version)

In this commentary, I highlight flaws in the article by Woo and colleagues (in press, this issue) that undermine its credibility and utility as rigorous science that contributes to the field by discussing: 1) the concept of epistemic oppression (e.g., Dotson, 2014) regarding the glaring exclusion of multiple germane bodies of research; and 2) the importance of including construct validity within a psychometric article regarding the GRE (ETS, 2019). I conclude with a plea to the authors that the matter of anti-Black violence and murder, for which they reference, is one to be taken respectfully, seriously, and somberly.