Prioritizing Equitable Social Outcomes with and for Diverse Readers: A Conceptual Framework for the Development and Use of Justice-Based Reading Assessment
Saved in:
| Title: | Prioritizing Equitable Social Outcomes with and for Diverse Readers: A Conceptual Framework for the Development and Use of Justice-Based Reading Assessment |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Elena Forzani (ORCID |
| Source: | Educational Psychologist. 2024 59(4):291-314. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 24 |
| Publication Date: | 2024 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Descriptive |
| Descriptors: | Reading Tests, Student Evaluation, Student Diversity, Culture Fair Tests, Social Justice, Minority Group Students, Evaluation Methods, Student Participation, Family Involvement, Student Needs, Student Rights, Reading Skills, Test Construction |
| DOI: | 10.1080/00461520.2024.2418400 |
| ISSN: | 0046-1520 1532-6985 |
| Abstract: | Scholarship on the science of reading (SoR) has, in some instances, taken up more narrow views of reading in discussions and instantiations of reading assessment that do not center equity and justice, especially in schools. This can lead to less valid and even harmful reading assessment, especially for students from historically marginalized communities with diverse language, cultural, and neurological differences. Here, we draw on critically-minded reading research, as well as on work in equity-oriented educational assessment, to inform a justice-based reading assessment framework that can guide research, theory, policy, and practice. Using an equity-oriented and justice-based lens, the framework outlines three interwoven components: (1) relational and humanizing assessment practices; (2) justice-based products and outcomes; and, (3) a critical construct of reading. The framework compels designers, developers, and users to center the needs of rights-holders, and especially those from historically marginalized communities, throughout the assessment process. To do so, the framework outlines five principles that include orienting to equity and justice; prioritizing humanizing and critical assessment practices; grounding assessment in a complex, dynamic, and critical construct of reading for diverse populations; designing for justice-based social consequences, and engaging in critical debrief throughout. These principles guide eight phases of assessment, which we outline in detail. Finally, we discuss conceptual contributions as well as practical implications. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2024 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1452417 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF7oxkQ-utDa_dyxHOwKaFcAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDA91Ci39F6zr-f8UzwIBEICBmwxkOoGqw8HFN7xclnMbu4_AqKOWMbkO9WkwtcMIqR7K_sCFzGEQWxZllpmzmoxR6HdwPlr2rdyrry6KbrhqdqsKQzerC_QgeydTKT8K9qKzwSHf_c_yIZ4oaHtfIOiZTN3ZeDov-O1KpD0bGgkeSg8yryzqeuPoqXyWzXjeLaaah4vD3GrEolF0NYpZKucgY3I3iyOX9_bNavYd Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0181257476;epy01oct.24;2024Dec04.04:47;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0181257476-1">Prioritizing equitable social outcomes with and for diverse readers: A conceptual framework for the development and use of justice-based reading assessment </title> <p>Scholarship on the science of reading (SoR) has, in some instances, taken up more narrow views of reading in discussions and instantiations of reading assessment that do not center equity and justice, especially in schools. This can lead to less valid and even harmful reading assessment, especially for students from historically marginalized communities with diverse language, cultural, and neurological differences. Here, we draw on critically-minded reading research, as well as on work in equity-oriented educational assessment, to inform a justice-based reading assessment framework that can guide research, theory, policy, and practice. Using an equity-oriented and justice-based lens, the framework outlines three interwoven components: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) relational and humanizing assessment practices; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) justice-based products and outcomes; and, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) a critical construct of reading. The framework compels designers, developers, and users to center the needs of rights-holders, and especially those from historically marginalized communities, throughout the assessment process. To do so, the framework outlines five principles that include orienting to equity and justice; prioritizing humanizing and critical assessment practices; grounding assessment in a complex, dynamic, and critical construct of reading for diverse populations; designing for justice-based social consequences, and engaging in critical debrief throughout. These principles guide eight phases of assessment, which we outline in detail. Finally, we discuss conceptual contributions as well as practical implications.</p> <p>"I'm stupid," Chelsea said, hot tears running down her face as she got off the bus, just over a month into Grade 3.</p> <p>"What do you mean?" asked her mom, concerned to see her normally happy daughter looking so upset.</p> <p>Chelsea passed her mom a crumpled piece of paper. On it, her mom saw a short story about hockey written in French with a series of questions and Chelsea's responses after it, X's bleeding through in red ink.</p> <p>Chelsea was enrolled in a French immersion class in a Montreal suburb after the family had moved from Ontario for her mom's new job. Chelsea had been excited to learn a new language, but with each new reading evaluation, her confidence and motivation took a hit.</p> <p>"I had to read this dumb story, and I didn't know a bunch of the words because they were in French, and I don't play hockey. I <emph>hate</emph> hockey! I'm a gymnast!"</p> <p>Her mom squatted down low and wrapped Chelsea into a hug. "Chelsea, you're one of the smartest, most creative kids I know!" she whispered in her ear. "Remember that story you wrote about your teddy bear who turns into a superhero at night? Your cousins loved that!"</p> <p>"No one wants to hear my stories! They're dumb. And, now my teacher told me I had to read the books on 'that' shelf, the little kids' books with the pictures for dummies, and some of the kids in the class made fun of me when the teacher wasn't looking. I <emph>hate</emph> school!"</p> <p>Chelsea's mom's heart sank. Even though Chelsea had dyslexia and a speech sound disorder, she used to love to read. Sure, reading was hard, but she was bright, curious, and eager to learn about the world in the pages of a book. They read every night before bed—books with pictures, books with no pictures; books in English, books in French; fiction and non-fiction—it was one of their favorite times of day. And, now reading had become a source of stress and frustration: signing reading logs, reading books neither of them liked, and all the while being told that their efforts would never be enough—at least if Chelsea's reading evaluations were any indication. Reading evaluations were not kind to kids like Chelsea.</p> <p>+ + + + +</p> <p>Stories like this—inspired by the experiences of one of the authors—are, unfortunately, not uncommon. In fact, one could argue that stories like this have become a kind of norm in themselves, more familiar than stories of reading assessments that serve children well. We argue here that, unfortunately, although theoretically designed to support children like Chelsea, the recent turn toward "Science of Reading" (SoR) instruction and assessment in schools in the United States and in other countries that use alphabetic languages, often enacted in practice with narrow interpretations that do not reflect current research (Cervetti et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref4">21</reflink>]), has the potential to push us toward more harmful assessment rather than toward assessment that supports children's reading development.</p> <p>Narrow interpretations and enactments of the science of reading, meant to refer to a large and multifaceted body of research in how children learn to read and develop across the lifespan (Hattan &amp; Kendeou, this issue), erase many of the differences among children that characterize the rich heterogeneity of humanity. In particular, such narrow interpretations ignore a wide and growing body of research on the diversity of reading practices across different social and cultural contexts (see NASEM, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref5">89</reflink>]; Pearson et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref6">99</reflink>]) as well as a large body of research on the science of learning and of learning to read, illustrating that children best learn to read through contextualized and culturally relevant instruction (Aukerman &amp; Schuldt, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref7">4</reflink>]; Hammond, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref8">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>One reason for narrow interpretations of the science of reading is that popular discourse has, in many instances, taken up more narrowed models of reading, such as Gough and Tunmer's ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref9">47</reflink>]) Simple View of Reading and Scarborough's Rope (2001), often used in U.S. schools to guide selection and enactment of curriculum and assessment (Cervetti et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref10">21</reflink>]). Such narrower views undoubtedly have contributed to current views of what skilled reading looks like by illustrating the important contributions of two cognitive practices to comprehension: decoding and language comprehension.</p> <p>Yet, a robust and growing body of research points to a more dynamic, complex, and critical construct of reading, with reading processes varying, to some degree, by sociocultural context (see, e.g., NASEM, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref11">89</reflink>]; Pearson et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref12">99</reflink>]). Such a broader view of reading is represented in models of reading such as the RAND ([<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref13">106</reflink>]) comprehension model and the Active View of Reading (Duke &amp; Cartwright, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref14">28</reflink>]). The Active View extends the Simple View by outlining the contributions not just of decoding and language comprehension but also of active self-regulation, including motivation, executive function skills, and strategy use; as well as bridging processes, including fluency, vocabulary and morphological knowledge, and letter-sound meaning flexibility.</p> <p>The Active View (Duke &amp; Cartwright, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref15">28</reflink>]) also situates these processes of reading within the RAND ([<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref16">106</reflink>]) model, acknowledging the role that sociocultural context plays in the cognitive, conative, and metacognitive processes involved in skilled reading. In particular, the Active View underscores the importance of readers coordinating all of these skills in the context of a given reading activity and purpose, as readers strategically draw on different skills to achieve their particular purposes. Therefore, in this <emph><sups>article</sups></emph>, we offer a new model of reading assessment, the justice-based reading assessment (JBRA) framework, that combines the Active View with justice-oriented concepts and approaches to reading development and assessment.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-2">Need and opportunity for more equity-oriented and justice-based reading assessments</hd> <p>In order to set the stage for our proposed JBRA framework, we first describe current reading assessment practices that draw upon a narrow conception of SoR. Next, we discuss recent research in equity-oriented reading assessment, noting both its contributions and limitiations. Finally, we close by elaborating on the idea of rights-holders and highlighting the importance of partnering with rights-holders when developing reading asessment.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-3">Narrowing of reading assessment use (and instruction) in schools</hd> <p>In the past few years, many schools rapidly shifted to curriculum and assessment that align with the narrow conception of the SoR rather than with the broader science of reading (Cervetti et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref17">21</reflink>]; Aukerman &amp; Schuldt, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref18">4</reflink>]). This shift, has been due, in part, to strong advocacy efforts from the dyslexia community and has resulted in new dyslexia-specific guidelines that focus on isolated decoding and language comprehension instruction (Gabriel, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref19">42</reflink>]; Reinking et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref20">114</reflink>]). As legislation across many states in the U.S. has begun mandating particular assessments that align with these views, schools have raced to comply, often resulting in instruction that also is similarly narrow and not supported by the research base (see, Reinking et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref21">114</reflink>]). Unfortunately, research suggests that such narrowed instruction and assessment is likely to result in poorer reading ability and performance for all students (Davis &amp; Vehabovic, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref22">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>We illustrate this point using the U.S. state of Massachusetts as an example (though many other states have taken similar approaches; see National Center on Improving Literacy, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref23">93</reflink>]). Despite promoting "principles of anti-bias" in their assessment practices (Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref24">76</reflink>]), Massachusetts enacted a new reading assessment mandate in 2023 for Kindergarten through Grade 3 tied to dyslexia guidelines and aimed at supporting readers like Chelsea. Only four reading assessments meet the outlined expectations for early literacy universal screening in Grades K-3: Amira, DIBELS 8th, Early Bird, and mCLASS (which uses DIBELS 8th); one of these assessments (EarlyBird) is only available in English, even though 13.1% of the K-12 population in Massachusetts were English Language Learners and 26% had a first language other than English during the 2023–2024 school year (Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref25">76</reflink>]). The other three assessments are available in English and Spanish. These assessments measure a conception of reading that includes mainly letter naming and other fluency probes and simple measures of basic comprehension (e.g., the DIBELS maze test, a cloze assessment in which students select a word, from a set of answer choices, that has been replaced with a blank in each sentence).</p> <p>Although only meant to be screeners, these assessments measure reading based on the Simple View (Gough &amp; Tunmer, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref26">47</reflink>]); none evaluate other important and essential aspects of reading included in the Active View (Duke &amp; Cartwright, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref27">28</reflink>]), such as motivation, engagement, executive functioning skills, strategy use, or vocabulary knowledge. The failure to assess these broader aspects of reading neglects key contributors to reading comprehension. For instance, Burns et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref28">16</reflink>]) found that "active self-regulation" skills had an effect size of.46 on students' reading comprehension, compared to.44 for word recognition and.62 for language comprehension. In a study of students who struggled with reading, Wagner et al. ([<reflink idref="bib143" id="ref29">143</reflink>]) found that word recognition and language comprehension accounted for only just over half of the variation in readers' comprehension difficulties. Additionally, none of these assessments measure deeper comprehension skills such as reasoning with evidence, evaluation, and critique (see Goldman et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref30">45</reflink>]; Snow, [<reflink idref="bib134" id="ref31">134</reflink>]). Thus, although designed to identify students at risk of dyslexia, these SoR-aligned assessments provide only a minimal standard guiding student reading instruction, which can result in narrowed instruction (see Davis &amp; Vehabovic, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref32">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Importantly, none of these assessments help teachers identify students' resources (e.g., knowledge-based, motivational, linguistic, cultural, skills-based) that could support effective, asset-based instruction for readers (see, e.g., Noguerón-Liu, [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref33">94</reflink>]), especially for readers like Chelsea. Instead, such assessments are designed to help teachers and schools identify what students cannot do well. This deficit use of assessment is misaligned with research-based asset-oriented pedagogies that honor students' identities and build on their existing resources (Hammond, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref34">50</reflink>]). Indeed, the Massachusetts early literacy screening guidelines fail to provide guidance for assessing students in ways that are equity-oriented or justice-based.</p> <p>Such narrowing of assessment (and thus instruction) has compounded the longstanding problem that traditional assessment is often designed for a monolingual, monocultural, middle-class, and neurotypical population by people from more dominant populations who determine who and what gets measured and how (Bennett, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref35">8</reflink>]; Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref36">22</reflink>]; Hoffman et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref37">55</reflink>]). In particular, many assessments, especially those currently used in schools, often ignore how readers' diverse linguistic and cultural patterns and contexts influence cognitive and motivational processes (Aukerman &amp; Schuldt, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref38">4</reflink>]). Instead, such assessments often assume, and measure, a white (Milner, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref39">83</reflink>]; Randall, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref40">108</reflink>]), English (Share, [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref41">125</reflink>]), and neurotypical (Rubery, [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref42">115</reflink>]) set of reading practices even when the learners being assessed do not fit these identities.</p> <p>This is especially problematic given that the population of learners in the United States and globally is increasingly culturally, linguistically, and neurologically diverse, with nonwhite K-12 learners in U.S. schools now exceeding white learners (NCES, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref43">92</reflink>]) and with 15–20% of the population being neurodiverse (Doyle, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref44">27</reflink>]). As Messick ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref45">81</reflink>]) argued, assessments are instantiations of our social values and thus both reflect and perpetuate the ideologies of those creating them. Thus, when only white, English, and neurotypical ways of reading and making meaning with text are assessed, and when these assessments are developed without a partnership with those being directly served by an assessment, it signals that these are the only ways of reading that matter.</p> <p>Not surprisingly, then, rather than supporting reading development, reading assessment historically has had many harmful consequences for readers from marginalized populations, including multilingual learners (Butvilofsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref46">17</reflink>]), learners of color (Lee, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref47">70</reflink>]), and learners with (dis)abilities (Martin, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref48">75</reflink>]). Given that assessment often drives instruction (Davis &amp; Vehabovic, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref49">26</reflink>]), the use of assessments that center dominant reading assessment practices often result in instruction that does the same, reflecting and perpetuating broader social oppression and injustice.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-4">Contributions and limitations of recent equity-oriented assessment work across process, produ...</hd> <p>Given the large and growing body of scholarship pointing to a more complex and socioculturally situated construct of reading (RAND, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref50">106</reflink>]; Duke &amp; Cartwright, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref51">28</reflink>]), a few scholars have begun considering how to design assessments that align with this broader conception of reading, a purpose explicitly outlined by the <emph>Reading for Understanding</emph> (RfU) initiative, which guided many reading assessments created to assess a wide range of skills (Kendeou, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref52">63</reflink>]). This broader conception included more foundational and component level skills such as knowledge of the alphabetic principle, vocabulary, inferencing, and passage level single-text comprehension (e.g., FRA by Foorman et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref53">33</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref54">34</reflink>]; RISE by Sabatini et al., [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref55">121</reflink>]), as well as higher-level skills in line with complex comprehension noted by Snow ([<reflink idref="bib134" id="ref56">134</reflink>]), such as goal-directed reading involving reasoning and evaluation (e.g., GISA; Sabatini et al., [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref57">120</reflink>]). Such assessments aim to measure and support the practices of diverse readers.</p> <p>At the same time, technological advances and advances in measurement theory allow assessments to be better designed for diverse populations and with sociocultural and sociocognitive contexts in mind (Bennett, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref58">8</reflink>]; Mislevy, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref59">86</reflink>]). For example, more equitable approaches to assessment are being developed across multiple disciplines, such as culturally responsive assessment (Hood, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref60">56</reflink>]; Lee, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref61">71</reflink>]; Montenegro &amp; Jankowski, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref62">87</reflink>]) and socioculturally responsive assessment (Bennett, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref63">8</reflink>]), some of which use scenario-based design to simulate sociocultural contexts and thus better represent the practices of diverse groups (e.g., O'Dwyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref64">95</reflink>]; Sabatini et al., [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref65">119</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref66">120</reflink>]). These recent equity-focused approaches to assessment are important advances. However, they largely still represent the voices and definitions of reading of those conceiving of, and developing, them, rather than of the people whom the assessments aim to serve, whom we refer to as "rights-holders," following the Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, [<reflink idref="bib142" id="ref67">142</reflink>]). Rights-holders' needs, goals, and voices are still not given primary focus, as called for by critical approaches to both pedagogy and research (Paris, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref68">98</reflink>]; Onwuegbuzie &amp; Frels, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref69">97</reflink>]). Rights-holders' voices are included but not centered. This is a critical difference, as it means that rights-holders have less power to influence decisions than others who are developing and using the assessments for them.</p> <p>To illustrate, though not reading-specific, Bennett ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref70">8</reflink>]) outlines important principles for designing assessment products that can measure skills and practices across diverse sociocultural contexts, including across different linguistic and cultural patterns. Bennett calls for "assessments that include problems that connect to the cultural identity, background, and lived experiences of all individuals, especially from traditionally underserved groups" (p. 14). This makes an important contribution to understanding how more equitable assessment can better represent diverse students by including socioculturally contextualized problems/tasks (as scenario-based assessments do). Yet, no specific practices are outlined for ensuring that rights-holders will have equal say in the assessment process. Only rights-holders can determine the kinds of problems that will connect to their own cultural identities (Poe et al., [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref71">104</reflink>]). As well, Bennett focuses on the development of the assessment itself (i.e., the products of assessment) with less attention to the processes of assessment. This is important because the effectiveness and validity of an assessment relies not only on the assessment tool but also on how this tool is administered and how the data are interpreted and used (Messick, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref72">80</reflink>]).</p> <p>Similarly, O'Dwyer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref73">95</reflink>]) draw on Randall et al. ([<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref74">109</reflink>])'s Anti-racist Validity Framework to outline a process for developing culturally relevant testing using scenario-based assessments. They call for processes that include "feedback" (p. 6) from people with different perspectives, such as drawing on focus groups that represent different cultural communities (e.g., African American and Black; Latino; Women; LGBTQ+, and Asian American and Pacific Islander). This also makes important progress toward more equitable assessment by offering a specific process for including voices of those the assessment aims to serve. However, these voices are still not centered. Again, the power to make decisions still lies with those designing and developing the assessment; rights-holders are relegated to providing feedback while developers maintain the power to determine how and when to use that feedback.</p> <p>In their reading-specific assessment work, the RfU Initiative (Pearson et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref75">99</reflink>]) focuses on developing a broad and dynamic construct of reading better aligned to current research and inclusive of different sociocultural contexts and the people within them. This makes an important step toward the construct element of reading assessment in line with the framework we present. Yet, this work also focuses on the products of assessments (e.g., the assessment tools), with less attention to the processes of assessment design and use. While approaches to the design of the various assessments within the RfU purview also incorporated feedback (see Kendeou, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref76">63</reflink>]), as is fairly standard in current assessment approaches, none collaborated with rights-holders as equal partners.</p> <p>The equity-oriented approaches outlined above make important contributions toward more equity-oriented and justice-based assessment by including multiple voices and sociocultural contexts. Yet, they still are quite limited and tend to be used in research rather than in practice. Moreover, they do not go far enough to center rights-holders, nor do they provide structures for rights-holders to partner with other stakeholders in order to play an equal role throughout every stage of the assessment process, from conception to consequence.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-5">The need for equal partnership and shared power with rights holders</hd> <p>Applying the concept of rights-holders to assessment means that rights-holders are the people whom an assessment aims to serve, with particular attention to marginalized populations who, historically, have been underserved by assessment (see, e.g., Lee, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref77">70</reflink>]). Rights-holders can thus include readers (e.g., students) as well as members of the communities in which those readers are situated, who also are impacted by assessment. These communities can be both those for whom there are more immediate impacts of the reading assessment, as well as those for whom there are longer term and broader impacts on community members, such as families, community leaders, business owners, and other community members, since all are affected by the literacies of its members. Parents, though not directly impacted by an assessment's results, have an important stake in how well that assessment measures their children's capabilities, and for the accuracy of the inferences derived from that assessment (Rea-Dickins, [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref78">113</reflink>]). Similarly, minoritized communities have a stake in the opportunities assessment results afford or limit for children in their communities, and for the messages about these communities that inferences from assessment data communicate (see, for example, Schissel, [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref79">122</reflink>]; Shohamy, [<reflink idref="bib128" id="ref80">128</reflink>]).</p> <p>In summary, we argue that it is critical to move beyond the narrow conceptualizations of current, SoR-aligned reading assessments. Additionally, we note that while there is a growing number of researchers working to develop equity-oriented assessments, there is not yet a comprehensive framework outlining an equity-oriented and justice-based approach to the products and processes of reading assessment that take up critical constructs of reading to be used in alignment across diverse people, contexts, and purposes. Such alignment is important in order to ensure that justice-based consequences are actually achieved. And finally, we note that outlining an equity-oriented and justice-based approach to developing and using reading assessment that partners with rights-holders and that explicitly serves readers from marginalized populations is especially important at a time when much discourse around SoR is narrowing to exclude marginalized populations rather than expanding to represent, and to sustain, the linguistic and cultural practices of diverse readers (Aukerman &amp; Schuldt, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref81">4</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-6">A framework for justice-based reading assessment</hd> <p>To address longstanding and historical inequities in reading assessment practices for marginalized learners, a framework for the development and use of reading assessment is needed that focuses explicitly not only on representing the readers an assessment aims to serve, but on actually partnering with, as equal contributors, rights-holders. To that end, we draw on scholarship in reading as critical and socioculturally situated (Aukerman &amp; Schuldt, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref82">4</reflink>]; Duke &amp; Cartwright, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref83">28</reflink>]; NASEM, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref84">89</reflink>]) and on more equity-oriented assessment practices (e.g., Bennett, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref85">8</reflink>]; Forzani et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref86">36</reflink>]; Hood, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref87">56</reflink>]; Kendeou, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref88">63</reflink>]; O'Dwyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref89">95</reflink>]; Randall et al., [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref90">111</reflink>]; Slomp, [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref91">131</reflink>]) to propose a conceptual framework for more equitable and justice-based reading assessment that focuses on partnering with—and prioritizing—rights' holders, particularly those historically marginalized, in order to better serve their needs. Our proposed framework for justice-based reading assessment (JBRA) follows the notion of assessment as research (Huot, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref92">57</reflink>]) in which information is gathered about human beings to support their reading development. The framework includes three interwoven aspects of assessment (process, product, and construct), with readers at the center, and is undergirded by five principles that are enacted through eight phases of assessment.</p> <p>To develop the framework, we draw on the work of Freire ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref93">39</reflink>]), who argued that the forms of knowledge and the ways of doing and being taught in schools often reproduce inequitable social conditions and structures. Perhaps nowhere in education is the reproduction of social norms, conditions, structures, and ideologies more apparent than in the work of assessment, which defines the goals of education, imposes high stakes consequences on students without their say, and invokes deficit discourses to explain student performance rather than interrogating assessment instruments and processes themselves (see Ascenzi-Moreno &amp; Seltzer, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref94">3</reflink>]). This is especially true in reading assessment, given the enormous social value placed on reading and the fact that reading is used across every discipline.</p> <p>Yet, merely critiquing and even dismantling existing power structures is not enough. A more productive, equitable, and just assessment process requires centering and sustaining readers' strengths, assets, and identities (Randall, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref95">108</reflink>]). Thus, we also draw on the resource pedagogies of Ladson-Billings ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref96">66</reflink>]), González et al. ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref97">44</reflink>]), and Paris ([<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref98">98</reflink>]). Paris ([<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref99">98</reflink>]) argues that a culturally sustaining approach requires us to "divest from" dominant ideologies and "invest in" others (p. 368). A critical and justice-based approach to reading assessment therefore must include structures and processes for both interrogating and dismantling—divesting from—existing power structures that reflect those of an unjust society, and also for partnering with—investing in—learners from more marginalized populations.</p> <p>To outline these structures and processes for research/assessment, we draw on Onwuegbuzie and Frels' ([<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref100">97</reflink>]) critical dialectical pluralism, a justice-based paradigm for research that prioritizes participants impacted by research and, especially, those who have been historically marginalized. Critical dialectical pluralism focuses on creating contexts and processes in which participants have equal voice and power in the research process. It acknowledges the unjust hierarchical power structures across multiple levels of society and uses partnerships between researcher and participant as a key mechanism for breaking down those hierarchies. Following this notion, we include explicit structures and processes for both divesting from existing power structures and investing in the reading practices of the most marginalized readers by building and sustaining partnerships built on reciprocity with rights-holders as part of the proposed JBRA framework.</p> <p>Rather than a framework for a specific form of reading assessment, the JBRA framework outlines an approach to be used in flexible ways across different forms, including formal, standardized assessments used in policy and research, as well as informal, classroom-based assessments used to guide day-to-day instruction (e.g., curriculum-based measures). JBRA also can guide different kinds of assessment, such as formative, summative, diagnostic, and screening assessments. Although the JBRA framework is intended to provide a common way of approaching reading assessment across multiple stakeholders (e.g., rights-holders, assessment designers and developers, practitioners, policymakers, researchers), it is also meant to offer a flexible guide that stakeholders can adapt to fit their specific learners, contexts, and purposes since the framework centers the needs of the particular readers a given assessment aims to serve.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-7">Centering readers compels three key aspects of the framework</hd> <p>Drawing on critical dialectical pluralism (Onwuegbuzie &amp; Frels, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref101">97</reflink>]), our framework centers the needs and voices of readers through partnership. Only once readers' needs and reading practices are articulated can a construct of reading that aligns with learners' reading identities be defined. This is in contrast to traditional reading assessment frameworks, which typically begin with, and center, the construct of reading, as called for by construct-centered approaches to assessment design (see, for example, Messick, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref102">80</reflink>]; Mislevy et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref103">85</reflink>]). Partnering with, and centering, readers compels three key aspects of the framework illustrated in Figure 1 (see the three, overlapping circles with readers at their center) that attend to processes, products, and constructs. Because products (e.g., assessment instruments and data), processes (the practices people use as they develop and use these products), and constructs are tightly interwoven and affect one another, the framework gives attention to all three.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. Key elements of the justice-based reading assessment framework centering rights-holders across processes, products, and constructs.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-8">Relational, humanizing, and critical processes</hd> <p>Equal partnership compels relational, humanizing, and critical processes that center rights-holders' voices and needs (see top circle of Figure 1). Typically, assessments get developed and administered with little attention to processes and even less attention to processes that care for learners (Ascenzi-Moreno &amp; Seltzer, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref104">3</reflink>]; Schissel, [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref105">122</reflink>]) or that offer mechanisms for critique and transparency (Slomp, [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref106">131</reflink>]). Yet, processes are an essential component of any assessment, as they can greatly affect the validity of findings (Slomp, [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref107">131</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-9">Designing for justice-based outcomes and products</hd> <p>Attention, from conception to consequence, to identifying, designing for, and realizing justice-based outcomes (see bottom right circle of Figure 1) aligned to rights-holders' needs helps ensure that assessments will serve rights-holders. Typically, reading assessment frameworks are designed without outcomes that are explicitly justice-based. Comprehensive attention to alignment across assessment phases and across the actors who carry out the work of each phase (Elliot et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref108">32</reflink>]) is necessary for justice-based outcomes to be realized. Without this, the needs of those most marginalized, who historically have less power, are likely to be sidelined for the needs of those already in power.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-10">Use of critical constructs of reading involving identity meaning-making and critique</hd> <p>The JBRA framework also begins with the use of critical constructs of reading (see bottom left circle of Figure 1) that provide for disciplinary, cultural, and contextual variation across readers (Pearson et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref109">99</reflink>]). By critical constructs of reading, we refer to reading as more than a set of skills and practices ("reading the word"; Freire &amp; Macedo, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref110">40</reflink>]) to also include the ability to understand oneself within a broader sociocultural context ("reading the world"). The JBRA framework thus calls for incorporating tasks and texts that engage students in this work. As such, reading is defined as a mechanism for fighting oppression, seeking liberation, and transforming existing, unequal power structures of which one is a part (Muhammad, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref111">88</reflink>]). In particular, assessment tasks should include engaging students' critical consciousness, or their critical reflection, analysis, and action (e.g., through tasks in which students apply what they have learned from reading) of inequities in society Freire, ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref112">39</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-11">Five principles that guide eight phases of enacted practices</hd> <p>Table 1 offers an overview of the five principles that undergird the framework as well as their enactment across eight phases of development, which are discussed in more detail later on.</p> <p>Table 1. Five principles of equity-oriented and justice-based assessment and the phases in which they are enacted.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Principle&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Description&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Principles enacted through eight phases&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;1. Orienting Assessment to Justice and Equity&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Designing assessment from the outset with and for a diverse population, especially rights-holders (those whom an assessment aims to serve with particular attention to rights-holders from marginalized populations); explicitly interrogating and confronting inequality and oppression in assessment practices, tools, and outcomes and reworking assessment to sustain readers' linguistic and cultural identities and to achieve more equitable and just practices and outcomes (Bennett, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8"&gt;2023&lt;/xref&gt;; Ladson-Billings, 1995; O'Dwyer et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr95"&gt;2023&lt;/xref&gt;; Onwuegbuzie &amp; Frels, 2013; Paris, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr98"&gt;2021&lt;/xref&gt;).&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;Phases 1&amp;#8211;8 (justice and equity are centered throughout each and every phase).&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2. Prioritizing Humanizing Assessment Practices that Center Rights-holders&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Centering the voices of rights-holders, who have not been historically well served by assessment; using processes that sustain readers' identities (Gottlieb &amp; Ernst-Slavit, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46"&gt;2019&lt;/xref&gt;; Schissel, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr122"&gt;2024&lt;/xref&gt;; United Nations, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr142"&gt;n.d.&lt;/xref&gt;; Randall et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr109"&gt;2021&lt;/xref&gt;).&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;Phases 1&amp;#8211;8 (humanizing practices are used throughout).&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3. Grounding Assessment in a Diverse, Dynamic, Critical and Sociocultural Construct of Reading&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Developing assessment that aligns with a broad and dynamic construct of reading acknowledging the influence of text, activity, and sociocultural context, including with respect to digital and multimodal texts. Such a construct honors and sustains the reading identities and practices of learners with diverse languages, cultures, and abilities and includes the ability for readers to use text to critique their roles in the social and political contexts around them (Aukerman &amp; Schuldt, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr4"&gt;2021&lt;/xref&gt;; Freire &amp; Macedo, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40"&gt;1987&lt;/xref&gt;; Muhammad, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr88"&gt;2020&lt;/xref&gt;; Pearson et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr99"&gt;2020&lt;/xref&gt;; RAND, 2002).&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;Phases 1&amp;#8211;8, and especially Phase 2 (in which the construct is developed) but also Phases 3 and 4 in which the assessment is developed in accordance with the construct.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4. Centering Justice-based Social Consequences&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Considering first and foremost the intended outcomes of assessment with and for rights-holders. Prioritizing outcomes that work toward justice-based consequences, including more equitable power structures in society (Inoue, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58"&gt;2015&lt;/xref&gt;; Slomp, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr131"&gt;2016&lt;/xref&gt;).&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;Phases 1&amp;#8211;8, and especially Phase 2 (developing aims) but also throughout the other phases as the assessment is designed and in Phase 8 where the consequences of assessment are evaluated.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;5. Critically Appraising Relationships, Processes, Products, and Outcomes&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;In partnership with rights-holders and throughout assessment, engaging in critical reflection. This involves: (a) evaluating assessment consequences (Inoue, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58"&gt;2015&lt;/xref&gt;; Shohamy, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr128"&gt;2001&lt;/xref&gt;; Slomp, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr131"&gt;2016&lt;/xref&gt;); (b) evaluating assessment processes and stakeholders' positionalities and roles in that process (Ascenzi-Moreno &amp; Seltzer, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr3"&gt;2021&lt;/xref&gt;; Rupp et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr116"&gt;2006&lt;/xref&gt;); and (c) evaluating assessment instruments (Kame'enui et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr60"&gt;2006&lt;/xref&gt;).&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;Phases 1&amp;#8211;8: Phase 1 (examining positionalities); Phases 2, 7, and 8 (evaluating consequences); Phases 3 and 4 (critically appraising design); Phase 5 (critically selecting and adjusting assessments); and Phase 6 (critical debrief).&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0181257476-12">Orienting assessment to equity and justice</hd> <p>The most salient aspect of this framework is the use of a critical justice orientation (Randall et al., [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref113">111</reflink>]) as a lens through which the rest of the assessment is developed and used (see lower right box of Figure 1). This lens prioritizes assessment that seeks to break down hierarchical structures of power in society and instead to sustain students' diverse reading identities shaped by their linguistic and cultural communities (Paris, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref114">98</reflink>]). An equity and justice orientation necessarily requires the design and selection of assessments that purposefully interrogate these mainstream social values and ideologies inherent in the processes, products, and constructs of assessment and instead to design and select assessments that directly support the needs of readers from marginalized populations (Ascenzi-Moreno &amp; Seltzer, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref115">3</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-13">Equity</hd> <p>We define equity in assessment as serving those most marginalized, with learners getting resources according to what they need rather than all learners receiving the same resources. In this way, more equitable assessments result in shifts of resources to better support those more marginalized. For example, students who are not performing well on an assessment might receive supports beyond regular classroom instruction, such as more practice, different kinds of instruction, or tutoring. However, this approach could serve to perpetuate injustice if the assessment is based on constructs and practices of reading that do not align with readers' identities. Thus, in addition to equity, we also call attention to justice.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-14">Justice</hd> <p>We define justice in assessment as assessment that aims to address power hierarchies in society (see Onwuegbuzie &amp; Frels, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref116">97</reflink>]; Randall et al., [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref117">110</reflink>]), accounting for inequitable structures that have evolved from a long history of oppression (Mills, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref118">82</reflink>]; Rawls, [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref119">112</reflink>]). Thus, justice-based assessment acknowledges historical structures of oppression and seeks to shift power imbalances toward those learners most marginalized to make society more equitable and less oppressive (Randall et al., [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref120">110</reflink>]). For example, rather than merely providing tutoring support to students not performing well on a given reading assessment, justice-based assessment might mean rethinking whether the assessment measures a white-centric construct of reading and selecting or developing an assessment that better aligns with learners' cultural and linguistic identities (Randall, [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref121">107</reflink>]).</p> <p>In defining what they refer to as "assessment justice," Randall et al. ([<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref122">110</reflink>]) point out that "equity-driven approaches to assessment seek merely to provide scaffolds that compensate for historical and contemporary barriers. Justice-oriented approaches, on the other hand, actively seek to remove those barriers and also make amends for the damage those barriers have already created" (p. 206). Our framework takes up this two-pronged approach of centering both equity and justice according to this notion of assessment justice.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-15">Prioritizing humanizing assessment practices that center the needs of marginalized readers, o...</hd> <p>Another salient aspect of the framework is the partnering with—and prioritizing the needs of—marginalized readers from the very beginning of the assessment process and throughout each stage as a mechanism for achieving the equity and justice aims the first principle asserts (Forzani et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref123">36</reflink>]; Randall et al., [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref124">111</reflink>]; Slomp, [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref125">131</reflink>]). Such partnership enables participants to define and enact relational and humanizing assessment practices (see upper right box of Figure 1).</p> <p>A justice-based approach to reading assessment prioritizes the active identification and inclusion of rights-holders, including those from the most marginalized populations (e.g., Black, Brown, and Indigenous students) who, historically, have been dehumanized, ignored, and/or exploited. The values and needs of rights-holders take priority throughout decision-making. Rameka ([<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref126">105</reflink>]), for example, illustrates how centering Māori values and knowledge in assessment design supports more valid assessments for Māori students that celebrate and support their ways of knowing.</p> <p>Prioritizing the needs of marginalized populations necessarily means considering what learners are receiving in return. While traditional assessments take from students, justice-based assessments require giving back to students. This aligns with Indigenous principles of respect and reciprocity (Kovach, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref127">65</reflink>]) that require a shift away from extractive assessment practices, and a shift toward assessments that nourish and sustain the learner. Importantly, humanizing assessment practices benefit all learners.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-16">Grounding assessment in complex, sociocultural, dynamic, and critical constructs of reading</hd> <p>Educational assessments seek to measure ability in a particular discipline, or content area. Thus, a central aspect of developing an assessment is defining the content, or construct, one plans to measure (Kane, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref128">62</reflink>]). Yet, as Latour ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref129">68</reflink>]) pointed out, disciplines are constantly changing. Thus, any conceptualization of disciplinary content requires constant articulation and rearticulation of disciplinary ways of knowing and coming to know (Warren et al., [<reflink idref="bib144" id="ref130">144</reflink>]). For reading assessment, this means divesting from the white, Eurocentric ways of defining reading and investing in the ways of knowing of those an assessment aims to serve. Writing about media literacy, for example, which involves constantly changing technologies, Sabatini ([<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref131">117</reflink>]) argued for the use of "disposable constructs" (<reflink idref="bib163" id="ref132">163</reflink>) as assessment developers and users determine how best to define the constructs they wish to measure in a particular context.</p> <p>Such an approach is in line with research pointing to a broad and dynamic construct of reading that views the cognitive processes involved in reading as situated in, and affected by, sociocultural contexts, a view taken up by the RfU Initiative (Pearson et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref133">99</reflink>]). Our framework follows the RfU Initiative in defining reading literacy as: "the deployment of a constellation of cognitive, language, and social reasoning skills, knowledge, strategies, and dispositions, directed toward achieving specific reading purposes" (Sabatini et al., [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref134">118</reflink>], p. 7). Assessments of reading literacy measure both components of reading as well as global reading literacy. Additionally, we build on the "purpose" aspect of this definition by calling attention to the critical notion of reading not only the "word" but also the "world" with critical consciousness (Freire &amp; Macedo, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref135">40</reflink>]). Research on reading as a broad, dynamic, and critical construct (see left-hand box of Figure 1) points to several important aspects that those involved in developing, selecting, and using reading assessment should consider, as described in the sections that follow.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-17">Reading is complex, and skilled reading involves coordinating multiple skills, strategies, an...</hd> <p>Skilled reading involves developing and coordinating multiple components, including cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational practices (Duke &amp; Cartwright, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref136">28</reflink>]; Pearson et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref137">99</reflink>]; RAND, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref138">106</reflink>]). Skilled readers draw on their knowledge of the alphabetic principle, or their ability to decode words (Foorman, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref139">35</reflink>]), as well as on multiple forms of prior knowledge, including lexical quality (pronunciation, spelling, awareness of synonyms, morphological structure), syntactic awareness (Perfetti &amp; Stafura, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref140">101</reflink>]), and content knowledge (Hattan et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref141">53</reflink>]) to make sense of text as they read. Skilled readers also use metacognitive practices, such as comprehension, word solving, vocabulary, and self-regulation strategies to guide their comprehension in strategic ways that support their purpose as they read (Afflerbach &amp; Cho, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref142">1</reflink>]; Duke &amp; Cartwright, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref143">28</reflink>]). Additionally, readers' motivations, including interest and self-efficacy, support their comprehension (Guthrie &amp; Klauda, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref144">49</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-18">Reading ability is dynamic and Varies by linguistic, social, and cultural contexts</hd> <p>Research suggests that, while some reading practices are stable across populations, many cognitive practices such as those involved in reading vary by population (NASEM, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref145">89</reflink>]). For example, Henrich et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref146">54</reflink>]) research illustrates that much of what scholars think they know about human behavior and psychology has been developed from samples of "WEIRD" (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) people, who do not represent the majority of the human population. Reading practices can be especially variable across different disciplines, cultures, and contexts (Pearson et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref147">99</reflink>]). Moreover, the cognitive and motivation practices readers use during skilled reading are affected by text and activity; performance thus varies by these elements (RAND, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref148">106</reflink>]).</p> <p>Reading assessment should thus measure, and report, reading ability in ways that enable a clearer understanding of how readers' abilities are affected by different forms of text, activity, and context (Pearson et al., [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref149">100</reflink>]). Additionally, reading assessment should be situated within sociocultural contexts to support ecologically valid assessment and to better measure authentic reading, as scenario-based assessment aims to do (Sabatini et al., [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref150">119</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref151">120</reflink>]). This is true even when component skills of reading are measured, such as decoding, which often are measured in inauthentic and decontextualized ways (e.g., lists of nonsense words).</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-19">Reading ability involves identity meaning-making and critique</hd> <p>Reading ability includes reading not just the word but also the world (Freire &amp; Macedo, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref152">40</reflink>]). Readers' identities are closely involved in the reading process, and reading includes the ability to understand oneself within different sociocultural contexts, including understanding one's role in hierarchical structures of society and critiquing those existing power structures to disrupt oppression (Muhammad, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref153">88</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-20">Reading ability varies by digital and disciplinary context and requires Interpretation of mul...</hd> <p>Reading ability is especially affected with respect to reading in digital and disciplinary environments. Here, reading becomes more complex because readers are navigating, evaluating, and synthesizing information across multiple, and often multimodal, texts (Braasch et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref154">12</reflink>]; Britt &amp; Rouet, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref155">15</reflink>]; Coiro, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref156">23</reflink>]; Goldman et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref157">45</reflink>]; Leu et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref158">72</reflink>]). Comprehension thus often involves purpose-driven and goal-directed behavior (McCrudden &amp; Schraw, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref159">78</reflink>]) that requires readers to interact socially, to collaborate, to communicate, and to consider multiple, different perspectives (LaRusso et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref160">67</reflink>]). Additionally, comprehension practices can shift depending on disciplinary purpose of a given reading activity and text (Shanahan &amp; Shanahan, [<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref161">124</reflink>]). Not surprisingly, such reading contexts require somewhat different skills and strategies (Afflerbach &amp; Cho, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref162">1</reflink>]), including a focus on the evaluation of the credibility and accuracy of the information (Kiili et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref163">64</reflink>]) and can motivate students differently than do offline, single text contexts (Forzani et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref164">37</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-21">Reading ability involves linguistic knowledge</hd> <p>Reading assessments are also assessments of language, as language mediates the ways in which readers engage in test instructions, items, content, and responses (Shohamy, [<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref165">127</reflink>]). Thus, defining a more complex construct of reading also means acknowledging language differences and using a multilingual, translanguaging approach to designing assessments (Schissel et al., [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref166">123</reflink>]). Noguerón-Liu ([<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref167">94</reflink>]) highlights the fact that many reading assessments are not designed to account for the language practices in which many bilingual students and their families engage. Similarly, Baker-Bell ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref168">5</reflink>]), in purposefully using the term "White Mainstream English," (p. 3) points out that "standard" English is not "standard" so much as merely normalized because it happens to be the language used by the dominant group. Thus, when White Mainstream English is used in reading assessment items and texts, particular choices are made about whose reading practices matter. Additionally, readers' knowledge of academic language impacts their ability to decode and make sense of texts (Uccelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref169">141</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-22">Centering justice-based social consequences</hd> <p>An equity and justice orientation also compels attention to the consequences, or outcomes, of assessment, especially for rights-holders (see lower right box of Figure 1). As Messick ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref170">81</reflink>]) and Solano-Flores ([<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref171">135</reflink>]) have argued, assessments are both reflections and instantiations of our social values; the intended and unintended consequences of assessment need to align with those values. Thus, assessments that prioritize equity and justice as social values should prioritize ensuring that the social consequences that result from assessments sustain the readerly identities of marginalized students, including their cultures, languages, forms of knowledge, and ways of knowing (Inoue, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref172">58</reflink>]; Slomp, [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref173">131</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-23">Critically appraising processes, products, and outcomes</hd> <p>Because regular reflection can prompt adjustments, engaging in critical appraisal throughout assessment allows for adjustment along the way and can help ensure that outcomes for rights-holders are met (Forzani et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref174">36</reflink>]; Slomp, [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref175">131</reflink>]; see upper right box of Figure 1). Critical appraisal involves three aspects of reflection and evaluation: (a) evaluating assessment processes and the role of all those involved in assessment to understand how their ideologies shape assessment and effects on rights-holders (Ascenzi-Moreno &amp; Seltzer, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref176">3</reflink>]); (b) evaluating products, such as construct definitions, assessment blueprints, or frameworks, instruments, administration protocols, and results (Kame'enui et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref177">60</reflink>]; Slomp, [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref178">131</reflink>]); and (c) evaluating both intended and unintended consequences (Messick, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref179">80</reflink>]; Shohamy, [<reflink idref="bib128" id="ref180">128</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-24">Engaging the principles through eight phases</hd> <p>The sequence of phases in the JBRA framework is intended to be iterative, ensuring that a process of continual critical reflection is central to the assessment process. Figure 2 depicts the iterative nature of these phases, which centers rights-holders, and the far-right column of Table 1 illustrates how the phases enact each of the five principles. Additionally, in the Supplemental Materials, we provide a set of figures (see Figures A1-A11) illustrating each phase and color coded according to the ways in which the principles are enacted in each of the phases. To illustrate each phase, we return to our example from the prologue throughout.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. Eight iterative phases of reading assessment that center rights-holders. Note. "J-B" refers to "Justice-based."</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-25">Participant involvement and responsibility throughout the phases</hd> <p>The JBRA framework defines different kinds of participant groups and outlines their involvement and responsibility in each phase while holding rights-holders' participation central throughout. We draw on Oliveri et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref181">96</reflink>]) and Slomp et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib133" id="ref182">133</reflink>]) discussions of using multidisciplinary teams with distributed leadership and responsibility, where different kinds of expertise (e.g., expertise in content, assessment design, item and task design, computer programming, psychometrics, and scoring) are provided by different groups of people throughout different phases of the assessment process. We build on this work by also adding the expertise of rights-holders, who have "insider knowledge" of their own reading practices and purposes—knowledge often not present in groups of designers and developers, who rarely fully represent the rights-holders being served by the assessment (Stobart, [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref183">139</reflink>]).</p> <p>Participants often have responsibility for multiple phases of assessment (e.g., content experts provide feedback throughout the assessment process), with rights-holders' involvement central throughout every phase. The roles are not meant to define strict boundaries; rather, participants' involvement and responsibility shift as their work is foregrounded or backgrounded during different phases (e.g., a developer's work might be foregrounded during development but then backgrounded during classroom administration and use of results).</p> <p>Finally, participants' roles will differ depending on the purpose and type of any specific assessment. Drawing on Rawls' ([<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref184">112</reflink>]) notion of seeking "overlapping consensus" among diverse stakeholders when defining constructs and developing assessments, Elliot et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref185">32</reflink>]) argue for pursuing "reasonable pluralism" (p. 12); that is, satisfying somewhat different purposes and goals (e.g., informing instruction vs. informing policy) if agreement among stakeholders can be reached on the interpretive frameworks (e.g., construct definition; approach to assessment design) for developing, appraising, and using a given assessment. Table 2 outlines five participant roles, the expertise needed for each, and the specific types of participants, including rights-holders, who can provide such expertise. Importantly, through distributed expertise, all of these participants have the responsibility of carrying out the justice-based aims agreed upon at the outset of an assessment process (in Phase 2).</p> <p>Table 2. Key roles of different kinds of participants involved in the assessment process and the expertise they provide.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Role&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Description&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Expertise needed&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Types of participants to provide the expertise&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Rights-Holders&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Those whom the assessment aims to serve, with particular attention to those who have been historically marginalized&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Knowledge about culturally, linguistically, and practically relevant reading practices and purposes used in authentic contexts.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Students/readers; families; community-members&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Designers&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Those who identify the purposes and intended outcomes of assessment (including how data will be used and resulting social consequences), define the construct of reading and articulate how that construct will be measured, how the assessment will be administered, scored, and how results will be reported.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Knowledge of assessment design; content knowledge of reading and of specific facets of reading depending on the aims of the assessment; knowledge about computer design for assessments administered digitally; knowledge of psychometrics.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Assessment designers, experts in different facets of reading (e.g., motivation, self-regulation, phonics, comprehension) depending on assessment purpose; practitioners; psychometricians; readers and community members. Also, policymakers who might make decisions, policies, and guidelines that inform what gets included in assessment.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Developers&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Those involved in creating the assessment products (e.g., assessment itself, administration protocols, scoring guides), including those who direct assessment development, as well as item writers and those pilot testing assessment.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Similar to that involved in the design stage; additionally, knowledge of methods for field testing assessments before they are used.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Same diverse group of stakeholders involved in design but with a focus on development and field testing, including content experts, practitioners, readers, community members, assessment designers, statisticians, and psychometricians.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Proximal Users&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Assessment administrators and those who use data to inform instruction and/or research.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Knowledge of how to follow and adjust administration protocols and of how to interpret data to meet the needs of the actual students taking the assessment and/or involved in research.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Teachers and other educators; literacy specialists; school level administrators; those implementing reading support programs; researchers; readers, families, and community members.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Distal Users&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Those who are not directly involved in assessment administration but who use assessment data.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Knowledge of the assessment design, tasks, and scoring; knowledge of consequences of assessment in the particular contexts in which the data will be used.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Members of the media such as journalists; policymakers; researchers using secondary data sets; readers, community-members.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>Throughout the phases, all participant groups outlined in Table 2 attend to sound measurement practices to ensure the validity of interpretations from results (see, for example, AERA, APA, &amp; NCME, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref186">2</reflink>]; Kane, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref187">61</reflink>]; Messick, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref188">81</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref189">80</reflink>]). Indeed, participant groups should be empowered to apply the phases in ways responsive to their particular readers and contexts and to engage in development and use in ways that support greater validity for the students whom a given assessment aims to serve. This does not mean abandoning concerns related to validity and reliability, even when assessments are developed locally. On the contrary, it means better attending to validity and reliability concerns to ensure that assessments are more valid for the particular readers they aim to serve (Bennett, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref190">8</reflink>]; Messick, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref191">80</reflink>]; Mislevy, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref192">86</reflink>]). For example, Randall et al. ([<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref193">109</reflink>]) offer many considerations for validity evidence that shift depending on the participant. For classroom assessment, the focus is on evidence related to content and consequences for validity; and for reliability, the focus is on ensuring that scoring rubrics have a clear justice orientation.</p> <p>Table 3 provides an overview of the eight phases and also outlines the purpose of each phase along with possible outcomes, or products, anticipated for each. Additionally, in the Supplemental Materials, we offer a set of figures (see Figures A1-A11) that illustrate the involvement and responsibility of each of the five different participant groups during each phase.</p> <p>Table 3. Overview of purposes, practices, and outcomes for each phase of the justice-based framework for the development and use of reading assessment.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Phase&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Description and purpose&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Relational and humanizing assessment practices&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Justice-based outcomes/products&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Phase 1: Priority Partnering&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Identify and prioritize the needs of rights-holders and build relationships with rights-holders and other stakeholders to serve as the foundation for all subsequent phases (Elliot et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr32"&gt;2015&lt;/xref&gt;; Oliveri et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr96"&gt;2021&lt;/xref&gt;; Onwuegbuzie &amp; Frels, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr97"&gt;2013&lt;/xref&gt;; Paris, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr98"&gt;2021&lt;/xref&gt;).&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;a) Identifying and prioritizing rights-holders' voices and reading practices (Onwuegbuzie &amp; Frels, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr97"&gt;2013&lt;/xref&gt;; Randall et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr109"&gt;2021&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Descriptions of rights-holder populations and subpopulations being served with particular attention to historically marginalized populations&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Outline of other stakeholders and kinds of expertise they will provide&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;b) Developing reciprocal relationships and processes (Onwuegbuzie &amp; Frels, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr97"&gt;2013&lt;/xref&gt;; Schissel, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr122"&gt;2024&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Reciprocal relationships agreement and process plan (defining cultural values, knowledge, and skills needed; outlining agreed-upon processes)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;c) Examining positionalities through reflexivity (Frost &amp; Holt, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41"&gt;2014&lt;/xref&gt;; Mullings, 1999; Randall, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr108"&gt;2021&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Positionality reflections&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Working groups to discuss how identities and values might affect the assessment process&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Phase 2: Justice-Based Aims and Constructs&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;In partnership with rights-holders, identify desired aims and outcomes of the assessment and outline a construct of reading that aligns with rights-holders' identities and purposes (Barton &amp; Hamilton, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6"&gt;2012&lt;/xref&gt;; Pearson et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr99"&gt;2020&lt;/xref&gt;; Randall, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr108"&gt;2021&lt;/xref&gt;).&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;a) Conducting landscape analysis of rights-holders' reading practices, purposes, and resources for reading (Barton &amp; Hamilton, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6"&gt;2012&lt;/xref&gt;; Gonz&amp;#225;lez et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr44"&gt;2006&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Landscape analysis&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;b) Developing a justice-based theory of Action (Slomp &amp; Elliot, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr133"&gt;2021&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Justice-based theory of action&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;c) Developing a diverse, dynamic, sociocultural, and critical construct map of reading (Pearson et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr99"&gt;2020&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Construct map of reading representing rights-holders' reader identities, practices, and resources for reading&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Phase 3: Designing in Alignment with Justice-Based Aims &amp; Constructs&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;In partnership with rights-holders, design the assessment, including operationalizing the construct and process in accordance with rights-holders' reading practices and defining parameters for scoring, reporting, and use of assessment data (Randall, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr108"&gt;2021&lt;/xref&gt;).&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;a) Defining parameters for operationalizing the construct in accordance with rights-holders' reading practices and purposes (Randall, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr108"&gt;2021&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Blueprint/framework for assessment outlining parameters for operationalizing the construct and for scoring, reporting, and using data&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Plan for returning to the framework to ensure that design is carried out as intended&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;b) Defining parameters for scoring, reporting, and use of assessment data that aligns with intended justice-oriented outcomes (Slomp, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr131"&gt;2016&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Phase 4: Developing Items that Represent Readerly Identities and Purposes&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;In partnership with rights-holders, develop assessment tasks, items, and texts that represent the full range of rights-holders' reader identities identified during landscape analysis. Developers also test items on populations being assessed, develop flexible administration protocols, and design the scoring system (Bennett, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8"&gt;2023&lt;/xref&gt;; Lee, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr69"&gt;2023&lt;/xref&gt;; Mislevy, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr86"&gt;2019&lt;/xref&gt;).&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;a) Developing items with texts and tasks that represent reader identities (Bennett, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8"&gt;2023&lt;/xref&gt;; Mislevy, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr86"&gt;2019&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Assessment instruments (texts, tasks, items) that represent rights-holders' readerly identities and sociocultural contexts (identified during landscape analysis)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Process items and assessment-adjacent item sets (e.g., prior knowledge, motivation, language measures and questionnaires)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;b) Representing rights-holders' identities and sociocultural contexts (e.g., through scenario-based assessments; O'Dwyer et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr95"&gt;2023&lt;/xref&gt;; Sabatini et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr120"&gt;2020&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;c) Developing process items or assessment adjacent items (e.g., questionnaires, short measures) that identify students' knowledge, motivations, language, and other resources that contribute to performance (Lee, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr69"&gt;2023&lt;/xref&gt;; Mislevy, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr86"&gt;2019&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;d) Developing flexible administration protocols (Randall et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr110"&gt;2024&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Flexible administration protocols&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;e) Designing a flexible scoring system to reflect readers' resources (Noguer&amp;#243;n-Liu, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr94"&gt;2020&lt;/xref&gt;; Randall et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr110"&gt;2024&lt;/xref&gt;) ;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Flexible and resource-oriented scoring system with mechanisms for recording readers' resources for reading&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;f) Testing items on sub-populations being assessed (AERA, APA, &amp; NCME, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr2"&gt;2014&lt;/xref&gt;) with appropriate sampling methods to ensure accurate information about sub-groups (Breslau et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13"&gt;2008&lt;/xref&gt;; Sireci et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr130"&gt;2014&lt;/xref&gt;; Trumbull &amp; Nelson-Barber, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr140"&gt;2019&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sampling plan that reflects the sub-groups identified during landscape analysis&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Documentation of testing the assessment on the subpopulations being assessed and how the assessment was subsequently adjusted based on testing&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Phase 5: Use of Critical Stance to Select, Administer, and Score&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;In partnership with rights-holders, assessment users such as teachers, literacy specialists, and administrators select and adjust assessments to align with the populations being served (Ascenzi-Moreno &amp; Seltzer, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr3"&gt;2021&lt;/xref&gt;; Elish-Piper et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr31"&gt;2022&lt;/xref&gt;; Forzani et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36"&gt;2024&lt;/xref&gt;; Gottlieb &amp; Ernst-Slavit, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46"&gt;2019&lt;/xref&gt;; Randall et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr109"&gt;2021&lt;/xref&gt;).&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;a) Developing a critical stance toward assessments (Ascenzi-Moreno &amp; Seltzer, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr3"&gt;2021&lt;/xref&gt;; Randall, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr108"&gt;2021&lt;/xref&gt;).&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Documentation of selection and adjustment outlining examination of existing assessment in relation to readers being assessed and how the assessment was adjusted to fit readers&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Adjusted administration, scoring, and use protocols, as necessary depending on assessment adjustment&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;b) Critically selecting assessments that align with readers being assessed (Forzani et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36"&gt;2024&lt;/xref&gt;; Randall et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr109"&gt;2021&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Phase 6: Critical Debrief, Interpretation, and Reporting with Rights-Holders&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;In partnership with rights-holders, those involved in assessment administration engage in debrief to understand how aspects of the assessment process, as well as the assessment itself, might have influenced results, then interpret and report results by contextualizing findings in light of what was learned in debrief and putting forth asset-based and conditionalized interpretations. Here, justice-based narratives are prioritized and advanced (Pearson et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr100"&gt;2014&lt;/xref&gt;; Rupp et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr116"&gt;2006&lt;/xref&gt;).&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;a) Engaging in critical debrief, scoring, and interpretation (Rupp et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr116"&gt;2006&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Debrief protocols and documentation&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;b) Reporting asset-based and conditionalized interpretations of results of what readers know and can do (NAGB, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr91"&gt;2021&lt;/xref&gt;; Pearson et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr100"&gt;2014&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Description of how debrief influenced interpretations&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Asset-based and contextualized interpretations of results&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;c) Advancing justice-based narratives (Miranda, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr84"&gt;2024&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Justice-based assessment narratives accompany assessment results that specifically discuss the results in terms of power structures in society&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Phase 7: Use of Data Aligned to Justice-Based Consequences&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;In partnership with rights-holders, those using data (both close and distant users) use data in ways that align with the justice-based narratives and asset-based interpretations advanced in Phase 6. Developers take responsibility for ensuring that data are used in ways that align with their intended use (Hanno et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52"&gt;2024&lt;/xref&gt;).&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;a) Outlining a process for confirmation of appropriate uses (Miranda, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr84"&gt;2024&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Both close and distal use products will depend on the purpose but might include:&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Meetings between developers and rights-holders that verify intended use&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Near Users: products such as reports shared with readers' families; development of instruction (e.g., reading groups, instructional objectives) that align with assessment results; research reports using researcher-administered assessment&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Research using secondary data sets, Media articles&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;b) Preventing inappropriate uses (Hanno et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52"&gt;2024&lt;/xref&gt;; Hamnes &amp; Rocca, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr51"&gt;2021&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Phase 8: Evaluating Justice-Based Consequences and Informing Future Assessment&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;In partnership with rights-holders, assessment users evaluate both near-term and longer-term consequences for rights-holders and outline recommendations for future assessment (Messick, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr80"&gt;1994&lt;/xref&gt;; Shohamy, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr128"&gt;2001&lt;/xref&gt;; Slomp, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr131"&gt;2016&lt;/xref&gt;).&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;a) Evaluating consequences (Messick, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr80"&gt;1994&lt;/xref&gt;; Shohamy, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr128"&gt;2001&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Evaluation reports detailing both near-term (e.g., 3 days out, 1 month out) and longer-term (e.g., 1 year, 5 years out) consequences of assessments&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;b) Outlining recommendations for future assessment (Cardwell et al., &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr19"&gt;2024&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Recommendations for future assessments that specifically detail how assessments can further support justice-based learning&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0181257476-26">Phase 1. Priority partnering with rights-holders</hd> <p>Phase 1 (see Figure A1 in the Supplemental Materials) focuses on developing relationships with rights-holders as a foundation for making decisions, throughout each of the other phases, that reflect rights-holders' needs. In this way, Phase 1 especially enacts Principle 1 (equity and justice orientation) and Principle 2 (humanizing practices).</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-27">Identifying and prioritizing rights-holders</hd> <p>Drawing on Onwuegbuzie and Frels' ([<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref194">97</reflink>]) notion of a "communitarian view of power...represented by reciprocity" between assessor and assessed (p. 14), this first phase begins by identifying, prioritizing, and partnering with the populations and subpopulations the assessment aims to serve as active participants in, and owners of, the assessment process. Here, the important distinction between stakeholders and rights-holders must be acknowledged and addressed. A justice-based assessment process necessarily begins with partnering across diverse stakeholder groups (see, for example, Elliot et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref195">32</reflink>]; Oliveri et al., [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref196">96</reflink>]; Rawls, [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref197">112</reflink>]), but it must center rights-holder groups. Gottlieb and Ernst-Slavit ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref198">46</reflink>]), for example, focus on the need for students to be partners in their own assessment to support motivation and investment in the learning process.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-28">Developing reciprocal relationships</hd> <p>Following Onwuegbuzie and Frels' ([<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref199">97</reflink>]) notion of reciprocity, the cornerstone of the JBRA framework is developing relationships of shared power with rights-holders. This helps to ensure that rights-holders' needs are well served at every phase. In the JBRA framework, rights-holders function as partners and participate in shared decision making from beginning to end. For example, decision-making meetings and brainstorming sessions can prioritize the schedules of rights-holders, and discussions can emphasize understanding the values, perspectives, and experiences of rights-holders as foundation for design decisions (see, for example, O'Dwyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref200">95</reflink>]). Democratic processes (e.g., voting on design decisions) allow rights-holders' voices to carry more weight.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-29">Examining positionalities through reflexivity</hd> <p>In order to work with rights-holders, others involved in the assessment process need to be able to understand how their own identities might "enable or limit the exercise of power" (Frost &amp; Holt, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref201">41</reflink>], p. 90) and thus impact the assessment process, including results. Onwuegbuzie and Frels ([<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref202">97</reflink>]) describe the need to be "cognizant of [one's] own biases and personal values and those of [rights-holders] and how these elements might influence any decisions/co-decisions made" (p. 16). Thus, understanding both one's own positionalities as well as those of rights-holders and other stakeholders supports more equitable decision-making in service of rights-holders' needs (Randall, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref203">108</reflink>]).</p> <p>We return to our opening vignette about Chelsea to imagine what this might look like under our proposed framework. At the start of September the following year, Chelsea's school held a town hall in conjunction with an ongoing social media campaign to recruit and engage students and community members to join their Justice-Based Reading Assessment Committee. This was precipitated by a school board action plan to address plummeting high school graduation rates (Gradwell, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref204">48</reflink>])–-among the lowest in North America–-particularly for historically marginalized groups following the global pandemic. Chelsea has set a goal for herself of being admitted to the Sports Excellence program when she would start high school in Grade 7, a selective program that promotes academic success through athletic participation. After an engaging presentation by faculty and parents, she joined the committee to have her voice as a neurodiverse student heard.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-30">Phase 2: Identifying justice-based assessment aims and constructs of reading</hd> <p>In this phase, assessment needs and goals are identified in partnership with rights-holders (Principles 1 and 3) so that the assessment can be designed to align with their aims (Principle 4). Diversity of experience, perspective, and cognition serve as the foundation for design, and issues of fairness and equity are situated as foundational elements, rather than as a secondary consideration to be addressed after the fact. Without engaging in this work with rights-holders, it is unlikely that developers and users will define or achieve justice-based outcomes spontaneously given the inequities that exist as status quo in society. Figure A2 in the Supplemental Materials illustrates how designing for intention and justice necessarily compels a co-design process (see Onwuegbuzie &amp; Frels, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref205">97</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-31">Conducting landscape analyses of reading practices and purposes</hd> <p>Landscape analysis serves to identify the types of reading practices the populations served by the assessment value and need, and the resources they use for reading that might be included and/or examined within an assessment. Rich traditions of ethnographic research in literacy provide an effective model for landscape analyses (e.g., Barton &amp; Hamilton, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref206">6</reflink>]; González et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref207">44</reflink>]). This might involve interviewing neighborhood employers (e.g., store owners, childcare facilities), community organizations (e.g., churches, synagogues, community centers), and parents, all of whom are rights-holders. These interviews can provide a sense of what rights-holders think the aim of reading assessment should be, how they define reading, and what they find to be valuable.</p> <p>Importantly, landscape analyses also can include a scan of the literacy resources and sponsors within rights-holders' communities, as well as students' (and families') reading practices in their daily lives. Landscape analyses also can include interviews and discussions with critical scholars and other experts who consider the ways in which reading is performed and used specifically with marginalized populations. Although this process requires considerable time, it serves to help understand what communities value. The findings from the landscape analysis are then used to guide construct development and articulation of intended outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-32">Developing a justice-based theory of action</hd> <p>Implicit in all assessment design work are theories of action—the idea that the development and implementation of an assessment will achieve intermediate and long-term social consequences (Bennett, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref208">9</reflink>]). Too often, however, that implicit theory of action is neither sufficiently articulated nor critically examined. For example, McEwen ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref209">79</reflink>]) described the underlying theory of action for the Government of Alberta's Grade 12 diploma exam program as: "What is assessed becomes what is valued, which becomes what is taught" (p. 42). When theories of actions are not articulated, assumptions about the link between design and outcomes are often naive and ill-considered.</p> <p>We recommend that participants actively brainstorm potential negative unintended consequences of assessment and develop a preemptive plan for mitigating those consequences. For example, because research suggests that holding children back a grade (e.g., if they fail the reading end of year exam) will increase the likelihood that those students will eventually drop out of school (Bornsheuer et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref210">11</reflink>]), some states no longer allow students to be held back based on a single assessment score (e.g., California Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref211">18</reflink>], requires multiple indicators for retaining students).</p> <p>Articulating the theory of action requires designers and other stakeholders (see Figure A3 in the Supplemental Materials) to think through the actions that link assessment implementation to intended outcomes. Essential to a justice-based design process is the recognition that various stakeholders' actions and activities will be different within the same theory of action and that all these actions are mediated by participants' interpersonal and ecological contexts. Understanding these factors is critical to developing and evaluating a theory of action that is suited to the complexities of reading within different communities of practice.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-33">Developing a diverse, dynamic, sociocultural, and critical construct map of reading</hd> <p>We take up a situated approach to construct mapping (see Corrigan &amp; Slomp, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref212">25</reflink>]). Using the landscape analysis data, designers facilitate working groups for each group of rights-holders (including, but not limited to, those consulted to identify the assessment aims). In these specialized working groups (e.g., with community leaders, business owners, critical reading scholars), participants develop a construct map of reading independent of the other groups. These construct maps can then be shared and discussed across groups to identify commonalities and differences. The ultimate goal is for the designers to have a refined final construct map that reflects reading across the subpopulations being served by the assessment.</p> <p>The importance of using construct maps to explicitly represent the construct has been long established (Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib145" id="ref213">145</reflink>]). Still, designers often focus on minimizing context to develop a simplified and pure construct absent of any construct irrelevant variance (Randall, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref214">108</reflink>]). Mislevy ([<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref215">86</reflink>]), however, defines constructs as certain kinds of regularities in cognition and behavior that occur in particular situations and contexts, all with variation, and as perceived from someone's viewpoint. As shown in Figure A5 in the Supplemental Materials, this situated view of reading is essential to the design of equity-oriented assessments because it takes diversity of experience as a foundation of assessment design and use. Efforts to employ more participatory processes that center rights-holders in construct mapping are currently underway globally (e.g., Gandara, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref216">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>Returning to our opening vignette about Chelsea, a hypothetical landscape analysis of the Montréal area school that Chelsea attends revealed that the neighborhood is home to numerous linguistic and cultural groups, many of whom are recent immigrants. French is the dominant language followed by English, although census data reveal that 40 percent of the population speaks a language other than French or English (e.g., Mandarin, Spanish, Arabic) and many speak two or more languages (Statistics Canada, [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref217">137</reflink>]). During interviews with rights-holders, community members, parents, teachers, and participants defined their purpose for reading in many ways and also discussed why they valued it. Some important themes that emerged were that reading is a path to immigration (literacy scores are a requirement for immigration), to employment, higher education, civic involvement, and to learn about other cultures and traditions.</p> <p>Following a consensus building process with rights-holders and other participants, it was decided that the following justice-based outcomes would guide the design/selection of reading assessment materials: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref218">1</reflink>) reading should be a mirror to understanding one's own identity, experiences, and values, and a window to those of others; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref219">2</reflink>) reading processes and products should empower students to translanguage and to draw from their linguistic and cultural repertoires to read the word and the world; and, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref220">3</reflink>) functional reading skills, in addition to critical and digital literacies, will offer students a path to success in their academic, social, and working lives–particularly the lives of new immigrants and minoritized language speakers who are most in need of job security. The landscape analysis and the identification of values provided the foundation for the committee to develop a theory of action to illustrate the relationships among the resources, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impact of the assessment. Figure A4 in the Supplemental Materials illustrates this example theory of action.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-34">Phase 3. Designing assessment that aligns with articulated justice-based aims</hd> <p>We encourage assessment designers, in partnership with rights-holders, to think of the time following construct definition as the time to dream about what a meaningful assessment of the construct that aligns with justice-based outcomes (so rigorously and carefully defined previously) would look like (Principle 4: justice-based outcomes).</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-35">Defining parameters for operationalizing the construct in accordance with rights-holders' rea...</hd> <p>Designers have the opportunity to learn what the populations being served by the assessment think is the best way to operationalize the construct of reading (Forzani et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref221">36</reflink>]). For example, relying on the construct map, rights-holders might consider the parameters for the kinds of tasks and items that would reflect the practices identified in the landscape analysis conducted in Phase 2.</p> <p>This is necessarily a critical reflexive process. As assessment features (e.g., format, item types, scoring criteria) are identified, they need to be interrogated from a number of angles, such as their capacity to capture the construct, their potential for introducing construct irrelevant variance and bias into assessment data, their resonance with rights-holders' culture and experiences, and their potential to support student learning (see Figure A5 in the Supplemental Materials). For example, in their appraisal of a writing program assessment, Poe and Zhang-Wu ([<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref222">103</reflink>]) demonstrated how critical reflection driven design, centered on multilingual rights-holders, enabled them to avoid or correct problems derived from "poor theorization, overly reductive assessment practices, or [inattention] to unintended consequences" (p 10).</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-36">Defining parameters for scoring, reporting, and use of data that aligns with intended justice...</hd> <p>Here, designers describe how items are intended to be scored, reported, and used. Without doing this, it is more likely that scoring, reporting, and use processes will fail to carry out the intended outcomes since these processes are more distant from assessment designers during these phases of assessment.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-37">Phase 4. Developing and field-testing tasks and items that represent rights-holders' reading...</hd> <p>In this phase, assessment developers work with rights-holders to ensure that the commitments outlined in the design phase will be honored in the development of the assessment instruments (Principles 3 and 4). To that end, those engaging in this phase carry the particular responsibility of ensuring that the goals of the assessment are carried out in practice.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-38">Developing items with texts and tasks that represent reader identities</hd> <p>Assessment development should focus on working with rights-holders and those with experience in using critical lenses (e.g., experts, such as researchers and librarians, in diverse children's literature) to select a range of texts that represent the forms of cultural and linguistic knowledge of the learners being assessed (see, NAGB, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref223">91</reflink>]). When assessments are developed for a population of culturally and linguistically diverse learners, texts and tasks should represent the linguistic and cultural knowledge and practices of those learners (Bennett, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref224">8</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-39">Contextualized reading tasks: Representing rights-holders' identities and sociocultural conte...</hd> <p>Reading tasks should represent the kinds of authentic purposes and tasks with which readers engage in real life. One kind of assessment designed to do this is scenario-based assessment (Sabatini et al., [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref225">121</reflink>]), which situate texts, tasks, and items within purpose-driven scenarios, or activities, that are themselves situated in sociocultural contexts, thus potentially allowing better measurement of complex constructs such as that of reading (Kendeou, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref226">63</reflink>]). Scenario-based assessments typically include student avatars that can look, speak, and act like the learners being assessed. Such scenarios also can represent culturally situated purposes for reading that engage and motivate readers with their relevance and familiarity (O'Dwyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref227">95</reflink>]; Sabatini et al., [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref228">120</reflink>]). More equitable reading assessment thus requires working with rights-holders to develop scenarios that represent the reading and language practices of marginalized learners (see Figure A6 in the Supplemental Materials).</p> <p>Returning to our opening vignette about Chelsea, the hypothetical landscape analysis prepared by the hypothetical Justice-based Reading Assessment Committee for the selection of exemplary texts from a variety of genres and complexity levels that mirrored the community's values included novels and stories about immigrants, multilingual local tourism texts, and informational/business texts from local software companies and incubators (as Montréal is a leading North American tech hub). To support students' narrative reading, committee members selected stories about diverse Canadians, reflecting the committee's goal of using reading as both a "window" and "mirror" (Bishop, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref229">10</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-40">Developing items that identify students' knowledge, motivation, and language resources that c...</hd> <p>Reading assessments should seek to include items that evaluate students' language, prior content and other knowledge, and motivations for reading and learning about particular topics in order to better understand and contextualize reading performance (see Figure A7 in the Supplemental Materials). For example, when interpreting test results, it is critical to distinguish between language-related reading errors that multilingual learners are making when drawing on their knowledge of another language and other kinds of reading errors (Noguerón-Liu, [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref230">94</reflink>]). Briceño and Klein ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref231">14</reflink>]) found that, of the errors a group of first grade English Learners made on a running records assessment, 54% were language-related rather than a result of more traditional reading issues (Briceño &amp; Klein, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref232">14</reflink>]). Yet, assessments are not often developed in ways that explicitly support those interpreting results to identify the resources learners bring to the assessment and to use those to understand students' performance.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-41">Developing flexible administration protocols</hd> <p>Developers should create administration protocols that allow for some flexibility that is likely to support, rather than to compromise, validity. Developers should work with those administering assessments, such as teachers (e.g., through focus groups), to gain insights into the degree of flexibility that is needed. Reading assessments typically rely heavily on hyper-standardized protocols that leave little room for deviation. Such processes can be problematic when assessing students whose reading practices do not align with dominant reading culture and practice (Sireci, [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref233">129</reflink>]). Rather than threatening validity, deviations from administration protocols can actually improve the quality of score interpretations (i.e. validity). As Sireci ([<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref234">129</reflink>]) points out, incorporating methods to understand learners' variability within standardized assessment processes is important for helping those interpreting test scores to understand how test processes affect learners. For example, in a reading comprehension assessment, a teacher might be given the discretion to allow a student to choose a passage from several possible passages on different topics. This gives students autonomy and supports the likelihood that they will be motivated, interested, and knowledgeable.</p> <p>An important consideration when altering administration protocols is ensuring that alterations improve test performance by addressing existing biases rather than creating new biases. Research by test developers and training with test users (e.g., teachers, administrators) is needed to understand how protocols might threaten validity for certain groups of students and how protocols might be altered, including the use of accommodations, to ensure greater validity.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-42">Designing a flexible and resource-oriented scoring system</hd> <p>Assessment developers must take care not to embed white supremacist logics in their scoring processes of equity-designed reading assessments but should instead reflect the ideals described in the articulation of the construct (Randall et al., [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref235">110</reflink>]). Scoring rubrics should reflect the many varied ways of demonstrating reading proficiency. Rubrics must not assume there is only one 'correct' approach but instead should allow for an evaluation of reading that considers context. Thus, scoring guides are needed to support those interpreting results to identify the resources readers bring to assessments. This can include mechanisms (e.g., scoring of specific kinds of resources; prompts to scaffold interpreters' analysis of test-takers' resources and not just errors) for recording readers' linguistic, cultural, and other resources for reading. For example, Duke et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref236">29</reflink>]) Listening to Reading–Watching While Writing Protocol, meant to inform everyday instruction, offers prompts for teachers to record students' resources for reading as well as their errors. Similarly, Ly and Forzani ([<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref237">74</reflink>]) offer an asset-based multimodal literacy assessment for young children designed for teachers to understand the literacy practices and resources young children bring into the classroom from home.</p> <p>Additionally, scoring guides are needed that allow for a variety of responses to be scored as correct. For example, rather than an oral reading assessment scoring guide leading to a mispronounced word being scored incorrectly, a scoring rubric should instead prompt the scorer to identify the possible underlying linguistic resources upon which a reader is drawing, even when mispronouncing a given word in English (e.g., Noguerón-Liu, [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref238">94</reflink>]), and could count such resource-informed responses as correct depending on the purpose of the assessment. This allows those interpreting assessment data to understand not just the resources students do not yet have but also the ones they do, which then can be used as a starting point in instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-43">Testing items and tasks on real readers representing the populations being assessed to inform...</hd> <p>There are well established guidelines for operational test development and use, typically involving an iterative process of item development, testing on real readers, and revision (Mislevy et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref239">85</reflink>]). This might include the use of cognitive labs (initial testing of particular tasks in which students are invited to think aloud as they engage in each task), field testing (to understand how items and tasks function with real test takers during actual administration), pilot testing (giving the assessment to a smaller group of readers and evaluating the feasibility and validity of possible interpretations), and validity testing (to understand how revised items and tasks function with real test takers). The Council of Chief State School Officers' (CCSSO, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref240">24</reflink>]) operational best practices offer an example of this kind of process on a large scale.</p> <p>During all of these forms of testing, both qualitative (e.g., think aloud data, some questionnaire responses, focus group and interview data) and quantitative feedback (reliability and generalizability analyses, dimensionality analyses, differential item analysis, scaling and norming analyses, modeling, correlational analysis, and variance estimation) is gathered to inform the next iteration of development. Essential to the JBRA framework is the focus on gathering a variety of data—again, in partnership with rights-holders—that is likely to inform assessment development for each of the previously identified subgroups of readers. Sireci et al. ([<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref241">130</reflink>]) found that 90% of English learners on a state biology test scored a zero on a constructed response item, either by leaving it blank or by responding incorrectly, a situation that offered little information to those interpreting results. Although Sireci points out that such an issue would not be identified by traditional item analysis, identifying key subgroups of readers taking an assessment and purposefully field testing for those particular groups would help to ensure that issues such as these are addressed prior to full administration.</p> <p>Furthermore, traditional techniques such as DIF (differential item functioning), which aim to identify differences in how assessment items perform across groups (i.e., to identify bias in assessment items) may fail to do so when there are sampling limitations for certain subgroups (Trumbull &amp; Nelson-Barber, [<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref242">140</reflink>]). When sample sizes from minoritized populations are insufficient, benign DIF (when assessment items correctly identify real group differences in performance) or adverse DIF (when groups with the same latent ability do not have the same probability of getting an item correct) may go unrecognized (Breslau et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref243">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>Building from our opening vignette about Chelsea, a hypothetical revision of the situation would be that Chelsea's school piloted reading assessments with students, and one of the key findings was that second language learners often were penalized on assessment items that were not explicitly assessing language (e.g., for students' failure to understand some or all of the instructions). After piloting the assessments, it was discovered that the majority of second language learners received a zero on certain assessment items. This led to students being provided with multilingual electronic dictionaries for particular assessment tasks.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-44">Phase 5. Using a critical stance to select, adjust, and administer assessments</hd> <p>In Phase 5 (see Figure A8 in the Supplemental Materials), the role of close users is foregrounded, and critical appraisal (Principle 5) is used to select and administer assessments that align with the readers being served by a particular assessment. Thus, an essential responsibility of anyone administering and using reading assessment is critically examining and adjusting assessments to fit readers.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-45">Developing a critical stance</hd> <p>Teachers and other administrators selecting and administering reading assessment carry with them ideologies that impact the assessment process and thus results (Ascenzi-Moreno &amp; Seltzer, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref244">3</reflink>]). This phase thus requires teachers and other reading professionals to develop a critical stance toward their own positionalities and ideologies and also toward assessment tools and processes.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-46">Critically selecting and adjusting assessments that align with readers being assessed</hd> <p>This helps to ensure that assessments represent and sustain the readerly identities and practices of those being assessed (see Forzani et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref245">36</reflink>]; Randall et al., [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref246">109</reflink>] for examples). We encourage those selecting reading assessments for use in schools to carefully examine for whom a given assessment is designed and tested, including examining purposes, items, texts, and scoring, and to consider the extent to which this population aligns with the readerly identities of the students with whom the assessment will be used (Elish-Piper et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref247">31</reflink>]; Gottlieb &amp; Ernst-Slavit, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref248">46</reflink>]). This also includes examining the flexible administration protocols developed in Phase 4 and adjusting them according to the students who will be assessed. Such principled interrogation of assessment can be grounded in questions of validity, fairness, and justice (for an example, see Behizadeh &amp; Neely, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref249">7</reflink>]). However, an important consideration when adjusting any assessment is ensuring that alterations actually improve validity of interpretations by addressing existing biases rather than create new biases. This process should result in administration with clear and agreed-upon expectations and timelines that serve rights-holders.</p> <p>Returning to our opening vignette about Chelsea, over time, the hypothetical Justice-based Reading Assessment Committee added more assessments to its repertoire that represented local Indigenous voices, 2SLGBTQ+ students, and students with a variety of mental health challenges. The goal was for each student to feel represented by the texts they were reading and that, where possible, for the texts to instigate important and meaningful conversations about social inequalities in their local community.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-47">Phase 6. Critical debrief, interpretation, and reporting with rights-holders</hd> <p>Here, we return to rights-holders to discuss findings, including examining data, encouraging alternative interpretations, and designing score reports (see Figure A9 in the Supplemental Materials). In this phase, Principle 5 (critical appraisal) is enacted as well as Principle 4 (justice-based consequences). Rights-holders can be afforded the opportunity to ask for additional data, as well. This requires an iterative process involving interviews and focus groups for rights-holders to provide feedback. Little insight into how users' identities, roles, and practices affect assessment results can result in inaccurate interpretations of assessment data.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-48">Engaging in critical debrief, scoring, and interpretation</hd> <p>After assessment has been administered and scored, and before, or along with, interpretation of results, critical debrief sessions can support more accurate and asset-based interpretations of findings (see, for example, Rupp et al., [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref250">116</reflink>]). During such sessions, rights-holders, developers, teachers, and administrators consider how their identities, and their roles in the assessment process, might have impacted results. Similarly, readers can take part in debriefing so they can describe their experience of the assessment process, which can lessen potential harmful effects of assessments by giving students a chance to voice concerns and can also support student investment in assessment (Gottlieb &amp; Ernst-Slavit, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref251">46</reflink>]). It can also provide important information to teachers and others interpreting assessment data about why a student might have performed the way that they did. Even very young children can take part in such critical reflection and debrief as they share their thoughts about how an assessment activity went for them (see, Forzani et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref252">36</reflink>]). Thus, the central purposes of debriefing are to lessen potential harm to learners and to understand how contextual aspects of assessment process and administration (e.g., timing, outside events, relationship of administrator with reader) as well as the content of the assessment (e.g., a biased item) might have affected results.</p> <p>Examining the assessment experience from the student point of view is particularly critical. This process can involve cognitive labs, interviews, and focus groups. Rupp et al. ([<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref253">116</reflink>]), for example, observed that response processes of non-native adult English readers were impacted by the assessment's design. Their work demonstrates the importance of accounting for rights-holders' experiences of the assessment process when validating inferences made from assessment data. Triangulating data from a variety of reading assessment tools, ranging from standardized measures to formative classroom inventories and assessments, can also help to mitigate bias and more accurately depict reading ability (AERA, APA, &amp; NCME, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref254">2</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-49">Reporting asset-based and conditionalized interpretations of results of what readers know and...</hd> <p>Including contextual items that help us understand readers' language, content knowledge, and motivations for reading allow test users to then develop contextualized reports of what readers know and can do when given particular reading stimuli (e.g., types of texts representing different forms of knowledge) during particular conditions (e.g., types of activities). Such reports are more accurate and help to avoid shallow, deficit, and stereotyped interpretations that certain groups of students are poor readers across all reading situations (Bennett, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref255">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>Pearson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref256">100</reflink>]) provide one example of a conditionalized report for an individual reader: "When John is reading stories that emphasize literal understanding of plot within unfamiliar settings on his own, he can successfully comprehend at Lexile 800, but when he reads informational text and works with his peers to use the information in the text to create a visual model, he can successfully negotiate material at Lexile 950" (p. 242). Conditionalized reports also can be used for groups of readers. The 2026 NAEP Reading Assessment Framework (NAGB, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref257">91</reflink>]) calls for the use of contextual variables (e.g., readers' experiences, reading habits, motivations) to disaggregate results across demographic groups, including across various levels of English language proficiency for English learners. This allows for an examination of diversity within groups.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-50">Advancing justice-based narratives</hd> <p>Justice-based narratives can be fore-fronted during reporting by considering what narratives to perpetuate (Miranda, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref258">84</reflink>]). Any reporting that could result in negative social or political consequences for marginalized populations (e.g., perpetuation of negative stereotypes) must be avoided. Additionally, those reporting results must consider the influence of systems of oppression (e.g., racism, sexism, classism) in the score interpretation process. For example, interpretations must avoid the use of accrediting differences in performance to race (e.g., "We found race to be a significant predictor of....") and offer more critical interpretations (e.g., "We see the impact of racism on student scores in this way...").</p> <p>In the opening vignette about Chelsea, the hypothetical Justice-based Reading Assessment Committee worked with teachers to report assessment results in ways that inspired and empowered students. Rather than students experiencing mainly the ways in which they fail as readers (as was Chelsea's experience), new ways of reporting emphasized student's strengths, areas for growth, and a plan for support.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-51">Phase 7. Use of data that aligns with justice-based outcomes</hd> <p>The most important use of assessment data is to support critical interrogation of results (Principle 5) for any evidence of systemic injustices or inequities (Principle 4) (Poe et al., [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref259">102</reflink>]), and immediate access can facilitate this interrogation. This interrogation by near-users and rights-holders, however, relies on the assumption that the [appropriate] assessment uses are held steady, or sustained, across all populations of students, especially those with marginalized identities. Figure A10 in the Supplemental Materials illustrates how the starting point for this argument must be the populations impacted by the assessment. With those populations in mind, each inferential chain needs to be examined, and evidence to test that chain of inferences must be collected, analyzed, and reflected upon. Thus, here developers return to, and center, rights-holders and gauge their comfort with, and approval for, how the data will be used. We note that any uses of data for purposes other than the direct improvement of teaching and learning are deeply problematic. To those ends, students, teachers, and parents should have access to assessment results as quickly as possible (e.g., near-immediately; for example, during debriefing that occurs within a day or two of completing the assessment) so that adjustments to instruction, or additional supports, can be implemented in a timely and useful manner.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-52">Outlining a process for confirmation of appropriate uses</hd> <p>Within any justice-based system of assessment, a process must be in place to ensure that near-users are given meaningful opportunities to confirm, revise, and/or extend the claims and uses supported by the assessment data (Cardwell et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref260">19</reflink>]). In this phase, assessment developers have the opportunity to verify the intended inferences and uses, for example, by holding school-based, grade-specific meetings to discuss the results of a series of classroom-based (though large-scale) reading assessments. Here, parents, teachers, and students have the opportunity to share what they think the results mean, and to then make a plan for their use moving forward. Such meetings make room for rights-holders to speak up about issues they have with any purported claims and to provide input on how the results should be used. For example, teachers and parents might argue that using the results of a particular assessment to determine reading groups would be inappropriate (for a variety of reasons), or they might argue that an appropriate justice-based use would be to determine who gets priority for free after school tutoring.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-53">Preventing inappropriate uses</hd> <p>Developers of classroom and curriculum-based measures should take responsibility for monitoring how schools are using results from assessments and training teachers and other users on how they intend results to be used. For example, we have observed DIBELS being used not as a screener, as intended (Center on Teaching and Learning, n.d.) but to form reading groups that remain relatively stable throughout an entire semester. If assessment users fail to consider whether assessment data are being used in alignment with justice-based outcomes, it becomes likely that assessment will get used in ways that might be contrary to these intended outcomes, especially because those using assessment data are sometimes quite distant from the development and implementation of the assessment itself (e.g., reporters who might use assessment statistics but fail to understand the purposes, intentioned outcomes, or items of a given assessment). Moreover, a break-down in trust between near-users (especially parents and students) and test designers/developers can ensue. Care must be taken to ensure rights-holders that (a) the inferences drawn from their data are appropriate given their identities and (b) the data will be used to further justice aims (typically to improve teaching and learning) and not as a tool of further marginalization or oppression.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-54">Phase 8. Evaluating justice-based consequences and informing future assessment</hd> <p>Examining consequences supports validity arguments in terms of the real impact of tests on students (Principle 4) (Messick, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref261">80</reflink>]). Thus, the final phase of the framework (see Figure A11 in the Supplemental Materials) involves all participants critically evaluating the social consequences, both intended and unintended, related to reading and stemming from the design and implementation of the assessment and the use of assessment data, with particular attention to rights-holders, and, especially to those rights-holders who are typically not well served by assessment (e.g., readers with minority languages, see Shohamy, [<reflink idref="bib128" id="ref262">128</reflink>]). Without this final phase, assessments might result in unintended negative consequences that harm readers' learning and development, as often currently occurs across multiple forms of assessment. Additionally, lessons learned from one assessment cycle might not be used to inform the next cycle in ways that attune specifically to the justice-based consequences for readers.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-55">Evaluating consequences</hd> <p>Both developers and users should set aside time to evaluate both the near- and long-term consequences of assessment for rights-holders. This might entail conducting studies of consequences across school, district, state, and national levels depending on the scope of the assessment (see, for example, Behizadeh &amp; Neely, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref263">7</reflink>]). For example, both developers and administrators (e.g., literacy professionals, curriculum directors, and principals) might examine school-level consequences for students (e.g., retention, remediation classes that result from low assessment scores and the longer-term effects of those actions on students' learning and development) (Slomp et al., [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref264">132</reflink>]). For developers, this process necessarily includes seeking to understand the experiences of test-takers, which could be done through focus groups with students, teachers, and administrators (Fox &amp; Cheng, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref265">38</reflink>]). This might also involve revisiting the potential negative unintended consequences developed in Phase 2 to be sure that none of these consequences have occurred.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-56">Outlining recommendations for future assessment</hd> <p>Using what is learned while evaluating consequences, assessments should then be adjusted by all users based on the extent to which the intended consequences for rights-holders are being achieved. Resources need to be set aside for revising the existing assessment, and, where appropriate, recommendations based on lessons learned also can be made for developing new assessments.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-57">Limitations of the framework and directions for future work</hd> <p>Our description of the JBRA framework builds on extant theory but on limited empirical evidence. As such, future research is needed to empirically test the JBRA framework. In particular, research and assessment development using this framework is needed to better understand how effective, valid, and pragmatic this approach is with different populations and also how the process might be applied in practice, especially in ways that leverage new technologies and support culturally sustaining pedagogies (Randall, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref266">108</reflink>]), as scenario-based assessment is beginning to do (O'Dwyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref267">95</reflink>]; Sabatini et al., [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref268">120</reflink>]). Here, we outline three key priorities for future work.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-58">Testing the framework across different users to understand practical implementation challenge...</hd> <p>Given that the framework is designed to be used across multiple participant groups (see Table 2) with sometimes differing goals (e.g., commercial developers' financial interests; teachers' desire to improve students' reading), studies are needed to identify challenges relevant to different users and to determine processes for stakeholders to come to agreement and contribute distributed expertise across pluralistic purposes (see Elliot et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref269">32</reflink>]; Oliveri et al., [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref270">96</reflink>]; Rawls, [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref271">112</reflink>]).</p> <p>Additionally, we anticipate practical challenges to implementation, such as articulating a construct of reading for any given assessment that reflects the multiple populations that might take a given test (see Bennett, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref272">8</reflink>]; Mislevy, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref273">86</reflink>]; O'Dwyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref274">95</reflink>]; for initial attempts to do this); and the additional time needed, which also can come with additional financial costs, to involve rights-holders at every stage of the assessment process. However, we believe this extra time is well worth a more just assessment that leads to more valid inferences and uses.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-59">Examining the consequences of assessments developed under the framework</hd> <p>Studies are needed to understand the consequences of the assessment process and products on students' reading. In particular, qualitative studies, including interviews and observations that examine rights holders' experience of assessment (e.g., see Rupp et al., [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref275">116</reflink>]) developed under the JBRA framework and the extent to which they found the assessments useful are needed to understand the extent to which the JBRA framework might be able to achieve greater equity and justice for rights-holders, especially as compared to other approaches to assessment.</p> <p>Additionally, studies are also needed to examine the impact on students' reading development when the JBRA framework is used, with a specific focus on whether there is improvement in students' reading, as defined by those whom the assessment aims to serve. Researchers should seek to examine the extent to which rights' holders trust assessment developed under this framework (e.g., if a child does not do well on the assessment, do caregivers trust that it is because the child actually needs more support with what is assessed, or do they think the results are due to bias in the assessment?)</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-60">Testing use of more flexible and critical constructs of reading as called for by the framewor...</hd> <p>A third question for future work to consider is how to develop assessments that measure constructs of reading that represent diverse readers' identities and can vary across populations. There are two ways we might do this. First, we can seek to understand the linguistic and cultural patterns that underlie readers' responses (see Mislevy, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref276">86</reflink>]). Items can be structured in ways to obtain this information and/or additional items (e.g., embedding unscored process items within tasks and/or adding prior knowledge and motivation measures for particular tasks) can be used to aid score interpretation (see, e.g., Lee, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref277">69</reflink>]). Second, we can develop computer adaptive testing (see, e.g., Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref278">73</reflink>]) that uses the kinds of items just mentioned to evaluate readers' underlying linguistic and cultural patterns and adapt subsequent items to these patterns.</p> <p>However, one important caution is the possibility of inappropriately defining, or presupposing, certain cultural patterns of reading, which could lead to inappropriately concluding readers of a given assessment engage in certain cultural patterns. Although an assessment system could evaluate actual readers' linguistic and cultural patterns as they are taking an assessment, there is still a need to define and make sense of the patterns. Thus, one potential problem with identifying cultural reading patterns is that someone is still imposing a pattern, which may or may not accurately represent actual rights-holders. This is one reason why it is paramount for rights-holders to be involved at every stage of the assessment process for any given assessment.</p> <p>Finally, as more work emerges that seeks to develop more equitable and just assessment practices, others are recognizing the need to leverage technology and new testing methods to prioritize equity. For example, AERA and APA (Standards Management Committee, [<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref279">136</reflink>]) have advanced a call to develop a committee to revise the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, &amp; NCME, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref280">2</reflink>]) to focus on "diversity, equity, and inclusion," to leverage "the role of rapidly changing technologies, artificial intelligence, and innovations in testing methods and modalities" and to consider "more explicit guidance on test score misuse" (p. 1). Given the likely impact of such standards on reading assessment, we call on those developing these new standards, and on others working on more equity-oriented and justice-based reading assessment, to engage in work that serves the needs of rights-holders by dismantling dominant ideologies around reading and instead sustaining linguistic and cultural diversity by partnering with rights-holders. For example, Poe et al. ([<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref281">104</reflink>]) call for racial justice extensions to the standards that have a principled focus on race, as well as for attending to categories of social construction beyond race. Key in this work will be true partnership and shared decision making with members of the groups the new standards aim to serve, particularly including those historically underrepresented and underserved by the standards. Only then can the new standards focus on seeking justice.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-61">Conclusion</hd> <p>There is a long history in the U.S. and globally of learners from marginalized populations—learners of color, multilingual learners, neurodiverse learners, and learners from communities with less socioeconomic status—being not well served by reading assessments (Butvilofsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref282">17</reflink>]; Lee, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref283">70</reflink>]). Deficit interpretations of performance on reading assessment often are attributed to learners themselves rather than to assessments, which often are not designed for learners from marginalized populations. Instead, such reading assessments often define and measure a narrow, one-size-fits-all construct of reading that reflects white, monolingual, and neurotypical ways of reading (Randall, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref284">108</reflink>]), and that is, in many ways, further narrowed by simplistic views of the SoR taken up in many schools (Cervetti et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref285">21</reflink>]). As a result, rather than supporting reading development, reading assessments often result in negative social consequences for readers from marginalized populations.</p> <p>Thus, the JBRA framework begins by taking a key point of departure from other approaches to assessment. Rather than entering into assessment (at any phase) with a focus on a construct of reading that is narrow, somewhat fixed across all readers, and lacks critical purposes, the JBRA framework begins with a focus on the readers an assessment aims to serve. In particular, a key contribution of this justice-oriented framework is the focus on partnering with rights-holders as a mechanism for designing, developing, and using assessment that achieves more equitable and socially just reading outcomes. Although other general frameworks for educational assessment (see Bennett, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref286">8</reflink>]; Mislevy, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref287">86</reflink>]; O'Dwyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref288">95</reflink>]), as well as frameworks specifically for reading assessment (Kendeou, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref289">63</reflink>]), call for representing diverse linguistic, cultural, and other patterns of reading practice through mechanisms such as feedback, we know of no other framework that specifically calls for partnership with rights-holders from conception to consequence. Partnership is critically important, as without partnership, it is unlikely that humanizing and culturally progressive processes will be used or that justice-based consequences will be achieved. Those who experience injustice are in the best, and sometimes only, position to determine what justice looks like for them.</p> <p>Drawing on critical approaches to both pedagogy and research that include critical appraisal as a central feature (e.g., Ladson-Billings, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref290">66</reflink>]; Onwuegbuzie &amp; Frels, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref291">97</reflink>]; Paris, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref292">98</reflink>]), the JBRA framework also incorporates critical reflection (through reflexive examination of positionalities), debriefing (through intentional sessions after test administration), and appraisal (of each phase, product, and of consequences) throughout. Critical appraisal provides a mechanism through which problematic products and processes can be identified and addressed in partnership with rights-holders.</p> <p>Additionally, the framework focuses on aligning such justice-based outcomes throughout all stakeholders and phases, with attention to the products and processes of assessment, and with a critical construct of reading. Although many frameworks for assessment, as well as specific assessment projects, have begun to take steps toward particular stages of the assessment process, with attention to particular audiences (e.g., assessment developers, psychometricians, educators, policy makers), or to particular processes, we know of no other framework for reading assessment that offers a usable and justice-based process, outlining specific practices, that can be used by multiple kinds of participants so that everyone developing and using a given assessment can work together toward a justice-oriented goal.</p> <p>Finally, the framework focuses on using critical constructs of reading that draw on the Active View (Duke &amp; Cartwright, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref293">28</reflink>]) as well as on the definition of reading taken up by the RfU work, which attends to both components of reading (such as those represented by the Active View) as well as to global reading literacy, which focuses on "higher-level" (i.e., more complex processes like those outlined in Snow, [<reflink idref="bib134" id="ref294">134</reflink>]) and "goal-directed reading comprehension," or engaging readers in specific purposes for reading as called for by real world contexts (Pearson et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref295">99</reflink>], p. 17). Our definition of reading builds on global reading literacy to include the higher-level processes of critical analysis and critique of social inequity, as well as taking action, through tasks and texts that engage students' critical consciousness (Freire, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref296">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>These are important contributions not specifically outlined by other approaches to assessment. In this way, we see the JBRA framework as one step forward in supporting readers' diverse identities so that assessment can support, rather than set back, all readers, including readers like Chelsea. There is, of course, more work to be done. Designing, developing, and using reading assessment in more equitable and justice-based ways is an incredibly complex task that requires many individuals working across different fields, audiences, and priorities—particularly within the context of a long history of highly problematic, unjust, and harmful assessment practices—to gain traction and make true progress.</p> <p>To that end, we invite readers across diverse areas of the assessment and reading pedagogy and research communities, as well as all those interested in better supporting readers, to continue to build on this framework by using it, outlining practices and considerations for particular phases or stakeholders, and identifying places where changes to the framework need to be made. However, the JBRA framework offers one step forward in "divest[ing] from" oppressive, white, monolingual, and neurotypical ideologies and "invest[ing] in" (Paris, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref297">98</reflink>]) more equitable assessment practices in partnership with rights-holders as we work toward "assessment justice" (Randall et al., [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref298">110</reflink>]) in reading.</p> <hd id="AN0181257476-62">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0181257476-63"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2024.2418400.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0181257476-64"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Afflerbach, P., &amp; Cho, B.-Y. (2010). Determining and describing reading strategies: Internet and traditional forms of reading. In H. S. Waters &amp; W. Schneider (Eds.), Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction. (pp. 201 – 225). Guilford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, &amp; National Council on Measurement in Education [AERA, APA, &amp; NCME]. (Eds.). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ascenzi-Moreno, L., &amp; Seltzer, K. (2021). Always at the bottom: Ideologies in assessment of emergent bilinguals. Journal of Literacy Research, 53 (4), 468 – 490. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X211052255</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref7" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Aukerman, M., &amp; Schuldt, L. C. (2021). What matters most? Toward a robust and socially just science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56 (S1), S85 – S103. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.406</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref168" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baker-Bell, A. (2020). Linguistic Justice: Black language, literacy, identity, and pedagogy. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref206" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Barton, D., &amp; Hamilton, M. (2012). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref249" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Behizadeh, N., &amp; Neely, A. (2018). Testing injustice: Examining the consequential validity of edTPA. Equity &amp; Excellence in Education, 51 (3-4), 242 – 264. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2019.1568927</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref35" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bennett, R. E. (2023). Toward a theory of socioculturally responsive assessment. Educational Assessment, 28 (2), 83 – 104. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2023.2202312</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref208" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bennett, R. E. (2010). Cognitively based assessment of, for, and as learning (CBAL): A preliminary theory of action for summative and formative assessment. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research &amp; Perspective, 8 (2-3), 70 – 91. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2010.508686</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bishop, R. S. (1990). Mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors. Perspectives: Choosing and Using Books for the Classroom, 6 (3), ix – xi.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bornsheuer, J., Polonyi, M., Andrews, M., Fore, B., &amp; Onwuegbuzie, A. (2011). The relationship between ninth-grade retention and on-time graduation in a Southeast Texas high school. The Journal of At-Risk Issues, 16 (2), 9 – 16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braasch, J. L. G., Braten, I. &amp; McCrudden, M. T. (eds.) (2018). The handbook of multiple source use. Taylor &amp; Francis/Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Breslau, J., Javaras, K. N., Blacker, D., Murphy, J. M., &amp; Norman, S. L. T. (2008). Differential item functioning between ethnic groups in the epidemiological assessment of depression. Journal of Nervous &amp; Mental Disease, 196 (4), 297 – 306. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0b013e31816a490e</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Briceño, A., &amp; Klein, A. F. (2018). Running records and first grade English learners: An analysis of language related errors. Reading Psychology, 39 (4), 335 – 361. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2018.1432514</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Britt, M. A., &amp; Rouet, J.-F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. In J. R. Kirby &amp; M. J. Lawson (Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning: Disposition, instruction, and learning processes (pp. 276 – 314). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burns, M. K., Duke, N. K., &amp; Cartwright, K. B. (2023). Evaluating components of the active view of reading as intervention targets: Implications for social justice. School Psychology, 38 (1), 30 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000519</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butvilofsky, S. A., Escamilla, K., Gumina, D., &amp; Silva Diaz, E. (2021). Beyond monolingual reading assessments for emergent bilingual learners: Expanding the understanding of literacy assessment through writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 56 (1), 53 – 70. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.292</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> California Department of Education. (n.d). Pupil promotion and retention. https://<ulink href="http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lr/pr/">www.cde.ca.gov/re/lr/pr/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cardwell, R., Naismith, B., Burstein, J., Nydick, S., Goodwin, S., &amp; Verardi, A. (2024). From pen to pixel: Rethinking English language proficiency admissions assessments in the digital era. CALICO Journal, 41 (2), 209 – 234. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.27104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Center on Teaching and Learning. (n.d.). DIBELS. University of Oregon. https://dibels.uoregon.edu/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cervetti, G. N., Pearson, P. D., Palincsar, A. S., Afflerbach, P., Kendeou, P., Biancarosa, G., Higgs, J., Fitzgerald, M. S., &amp; Berman, A. I. (2020). How the reading for understanding initiative's research complicates the simple view of reading invoked in the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S161 – S172. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.343</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, L., Karas, M., Shalizar, M., &amp; Piccardo, E. (2022). From "promising controversies" to negotiated practices: A research synthesis of plurilingual pedagogy in global contexts. TESL Canada Journal, 38 (2), 1 – 35. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v38i2.1354</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coiro, J. (2021). Toward a multifaceted heuristic of digital reading to inform assessment, research, practice, and policy. Reading Research Quarterly, 56 (1), 9 – 31. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.302</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Council of Chief State School Officers. (2014). Criteria for Procuring and Evaluating High-Quality Assessments. Retrieved on September 20, 2024 from https://ccsso.org/sites/default/files/2023-09/ATP%20Best%20Practices%20Version%202-FINAL-082113-interior-300dpi.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corrigan, J. A., &amp; Slomp, D. H. (2021). Articulating a sociocognitive construct of writing expertise for the digital age. The Journal of Writing Analytics, 5 (1), 142 – 195. https://doi.org/10.37514/JWA-J.2021.5.1.05</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis, D. S., &amp; Vehabovic, N. (2018). The dangers of test preparation: What students learn (and don't learn) about reading comprehension from test-centric literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 71 (5), 579 – 588. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1641</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doyle, N. (2020). Neurodiversity at work: A biopsychosocial model and the impact on working adults. British Medical Bulletin, 135 (1), 108 – 125. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldaa021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duke, N. K., &amp; Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the simple view of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56 (S1), 525 – 544. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duke, N., Ward, A., &amp; Klingelhofer, R. (2022). The listening to reading—watching while writing protocol (LTR-WWWP). https://<ulink href="http://www.nellkduke.org/listening-to-reading-protocol">www.nellkduke.org/listening-to-reading-protocol</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Education Quality and Accountability Office. (2022). Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, and Assessment Development Committee Member. Education Quality and Accountability Office. https://<ulink href="http://www.eqao.com/about-eqao/careers/equity-diversity-inclusion-assessment-development-committee-member/">www.eqao.com/about-eqao/careers/equity-diversity-inclusion-assessment-development-committee-member/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elish-Piper, L., Matthews, M. W., &amp; Risko, V. J. (2022). Reading assessment to promote equitable learning: An empowering approach for grades K-5. The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliot, N., Rupp, A. A., &amp; Williamson, D. M. (2015). Three interpretative frame–works: Assessment of English language arts-writing in the Common Core State Standards initiative. Journal of Writing Assessment, 8 (1), 4zb222xg. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foorman, B. R., Petscher, Y., &amp; Schatschneider, C. (2015a). Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR) Reading Assessment (FRA): Grades 3 through 12 technical manual. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.fcrr.org/for-researchers/fra.asp">http://www.fcrr.org/for-researchers/fra.asp</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foorman, B. R., Petscher, Y., &amp; Schatschneider, C. (2015b). Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR) Reading Assessment (FRA): Kindergarten to grade 2 technical manual. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.fcrr.org/for-researchers/fra.asp">http://www.fcrr.org/for-researchers/fra.asp</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foorman, B. R. (2023). Learning the code. In S. Q. Cabell, S. B. Neuman, &amp; N. P. Terry (Eds.), Handbook on the science of early literacy (pp. 73 – 82). Guilford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forzani, E. E., Dobbs, C., Leider, C., Malik, E., Gragg, M., Greszczuk, C., &amp; Jesberger, C. (2024). Students as partners: Using an equity-oriented critical assessment practices (CAPS) approach in reading to empower students and inform instruction. The Reading Teacher, 77 (5), 756 – 764. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2282</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forzani, E., Leu, D., Li, E. Y., Rhoads, C., Guthrie, J., &amp; McCoach, B. (2021). Characteristics and validity of an instrument for assessing motivations for online reading to learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 56 (4), 761 – 780. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.337</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fox, J., &amp; Cheng, L. (2007). Did we take the same test? Differing accounts of the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test by first and second language test-takers. Assessment in Education, 14 (1), 9 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940701272773</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed, 30th Anniversary Edition. Continuum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freire, P., &amp; Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. Bergin &amp; Garvey.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frost, N., &amp; Holt, A. (2014). Mother, researcher, feminist, woman: Reflections on "maternal status" as a researcher identity. Qualitative Research Journal, 14 (2), 90 – 102. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-06-2013-0038</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gabriel, R. (2020). Converting to privatization: A discourse analysis of dyslexia policy narratives. American Educational Research Journal, 57 (1), 305 – 338. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219861945</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gandara, F. M. (2024, April). The promise of participatory construct mapping [Paper presentation]. Presentation at the National Council on Measurement in Education Annual Conference. Philadelphia, PA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> González, N., Moll, L. C., &amp; Amanti, C. (Eds.) (2006). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldman, S. R., Greenleaf, C., Yukhymenko-Lescroart, M., Brown, W., Ko, M.-L. M., Emig, J. M., George, M., Wallace, P., Blaum, D., &amp; Britt, M. A. (2019). Explanatory modeling in science through text-based investigation: Testing the efficacy of the Project READI intervention approach. American Educational Research Journal, 56 (4), 1148 – 1216. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219831041</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gottlieb, M., &amp; Ernst-Slavit, G. (2019). Promoting educational equity in assessment practices. In L. C. de Oliveira (Ed.), The handbook of TESOL in K-12 (pp. 129 – 148). John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119421702.ch9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gough, P. B., &amp; Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7 (1), 6 – 10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gradwell, J. (2022, January 8). Opinion: Quebec's education system leaves many behind. The Gazette.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guthrie, J. T., &amp; Klauda, S. L. (2015). Engagement and motivational processes in reading. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context (pp. 41 – 53). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hammond, Z. (2020). Looking at SoLD through an equity lens: Will the science of learning and development be used to advance critical pedagogy or will it be used to maintain inequity by design? Applied Developmental Science, 24 (2), 151 – 158. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2019.1609733</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamnes, C., &amp; Rocca, C. L. (2021). Language test misuse. Language Assessment Quarterly, 18 (5), 477 – 491. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2021.1947288</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanno, E. C., Portilla, X. A., &amp; Hsueh, J. (2024). Designing equity- centered early learning assessments for today's young children. Child Development Perspectives, 00, 1 – 7. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12528</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hattan, C., Alexander, P., &amp; Lupo, S. (2024). Leveraging what students know to make sense of texts: What the research says about prior knowledge activation. Review of Educational Research, 94 (1), 73 – 111. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221148478</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., &amp; Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33 (2-3), 61 – 83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoffman, J. V., Cabell, S. Q., Barrueco, S., Hollins, E. R., &amp; Pearson, P. D. (2021). Critical issues in the Science of Reading: Striving for a wide-angle view in research. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 70 (1), 87 – 105. https://doi.org/10.1177/23813377211032195</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hood, S. (1998). Culturally responsive performance-based assessment: Conceptual and psychometric considerations. The Journal of Negro Education, 67 (3), 187 – 196. https://doi.org/10.2307/2668188</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huot, B. (2002). (Re)Articulating writing assessment for teaching and learning (p. 137). All USU Press Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Inoue, A. (2015). Antiracist writing assessment ecologies: Teaching and assessing writing for a socially just future. WAC Clearinghouse/University of Colorado Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> International Dyslexia Association. (2020). Structured literacy: Effective instruction for students with dyslexia and related reading difficulties. https://dyslexiaida.org/structured-literacy-effective-instruction-for-students-with-dyslexia-and-related-reading-difficulties/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kame'enui, E. J., Fuchs, L., Francis, D. J., Good, R., O'Connor, R. E., Simmons, D. C., Tindal, G., &amp; Torgesen, J. K. (2006). The adequacy of tools for assessing reading competence: A framework and review. Educational Researcher, 35 (4), 3 – 11. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035004003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretation and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50 (1), 1 – 73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kane, M. T. (1992). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112 (3), 527 – 535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.527</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kendeou, P. (2020). The assessment of reading for understanding. In P. D. Pearson, A. S. Palincsar, G. Biancarosa, &amp; A. I. Berman, (Eds.). Reaping the rewards of the reading for understanding initiative. National Academy of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kiili, C., Räikkönen, E., Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., &amp; Hagerman, M. S. (2023). Examining the structure of credibility evaluation when sixth graders read online texts. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39 (3), 954 – 969. https://doi.org/10.1111/cal.12779</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kovach, M. (2018). Doing Indigenous methodologies: A letter to a research class. In N. K. Denzin &amp; Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.). The Sage Handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 214 – 234). SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32 (3), 465 – 491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LaRusso, M., Kim, H. Y., Selman, R., Uccelli, P., Dawson, T., Jones, S., Donovan, S., &amp; Snow, C. (2016). Contributions of academic language, perspective taking, and complex reasoning to deep reading comprehension. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9 (2), 201 – 222. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2015.1116035</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Latour, B. (1988). Science in action. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, C. D. (2023). We ask students what they understand, not how they understand: Making reading comprehension processes visible and explicit. The Reading Teacher, 77 (3), 371 – 382. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2255</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, C. D. (2016). Influences of the experience of race as a lens for understanding variation in displays of competence in reading comprehension. In P. Afflerbach, (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context. (286 – 304). Taylor &amp; Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, C. D. (1998). Culturally responsive pedagogy and performance-based assessment. The Journal of Negro Education, 67 (3), 268 – 279. https://doi.org/10.2307/2668195</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., &amp; Henry, L. A. (2013). New literacies: A dual level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, &amp; R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1150 – 1181). International Reading Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, Y., Huang, C., &amp; Liu, J. (2023). Diagnosing primary students' reading progression: Is cognitive diagnostic computerized adaptive testing the way forward? Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 48 (6), 842 – 865. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986231160668</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ly, C. N., &amp; Forzani, E. (2023). Let's learn from them: Using the integrative multimodal literacy assessment tool to support instruction for young children. The Reading Teacher, 77 (3), 407 – 413. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2243</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, P. C. (2016). Test-based education for students with disability and English Language Learners: The impact of assessment pressures on educational planning. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 118 (14), 1 – 24. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811611801409</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2024, June 27). Early Literacy Universal Screening Assessments. https://<ulink href="http://www.doe.mass.edu/instruction/screening-assessments.html">www.doe.mass.edu/instruction/screening-assessments.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (2024). School and District Profiles, Selected Populations. (2023-24). https://profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/student.aspx?orgcode=00000000&amp;orgtypecode=0&amp;leftNavId=305&amp;</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCrudden, M. T., &amp; Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19 (2), 113 – 139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McEwen, N. (1995). Educational accountability in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne de L'éducation, 20 (1), 27 – 44. https://doi.org/10.2307/1495050</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23 (2), 13 – 23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X023002013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Educational Researcher, 18 (2), 5 – 11. https://doi.org/10.2307/1175249</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mills, C. W. (2017). Black rights/white wrongs: The critique of racial liberalism. University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190245412.001.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milner, H. R. (2020). Disrupting racism and whiteness in researching a Science of Reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S249 – S253. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.347</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miranda, C. P. (2024). Justice-oriented assessment in immigrant serving schools: A critical ethnographic case study of the elements of performance assessment. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 2024, 1 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2024.236518</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mislevy, R. J., Almond, R. G., &amp; Lukas, J. F. (2004). A brief introduction to evidence-centered design. ETS Research Repot Series, 2023, 1. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2003.tb01908.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mislevy, R. J. (2019). Advances in measurement and cognition. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 683 (1), 164 – 182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716219843816</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Montenegro, E., &amp; Jankowski, N. A. (2017, January). Equity and assessment: Moving towards culturally responsive assessment. (Occasional Paper No. 29) University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA.).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muhammad, G. (2020). Cultivating genius. Scholastic. https://<ulink href="http://www.learningoutcomesassessment.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/OccasionalPaper29.pdf">www.learningoutcomesassessment.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/OccasionalPaper29.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM]. (2018). How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24783</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (2019). Monitoring Educational Equity. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25389</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Assessment Governing Board [NAGB]. (2021). 2026 NAEP Reading Framework. https://<ulink href="http://www.nagb.gov/naep-frameworks/reading/2026-reading-framework.html">www.nagb.gov/naep-frameworks/reading/2026-reading-framework.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2022). Table 203.65: Enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by level, grade, and race/ethnicity: Selected years, fall 1999 through fall 2021. Digest of Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_203.65.asp</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center on Improving Literacy. (2024). State of dyslexia. https://improvingliteracy.org/state-of-dyslexia/?</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noguerón-Liu, S. (2020). Expanding the knowledge base in literacy instruction and assessment: Biliteracy and translanguaging perspectives from families, communities, and classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S307 – S318. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.354</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Dwyer, E. P., Sparks, J. R., &amp; Oláh, L. N. (2023). Enacting a Process for Developing Culturally Relevant Classroom Assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 36 (3), 286 – 303. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2023.2214652</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oliveri, M. E., Mislevy, R. J., &amp; Slomp, D. H. (2021). Principled development of Workplace English Communication Part 1: A sociocognitive framework. The Journal of Writing Analytics, 5 (1), 34 – 70. https://doi.org/10.37514/JWA-J.2021.5.1.02</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Onwuegbuzie, A. J., &amp; Frels, R. K. (2013). Introduction: Toward a new research philosophy for addressing social justice issues: Critical dialectical pluralism 1.0. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 7 (1), 9 – 26. https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.2013.7.1.9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paris, D. (2021). Culturally sustaining pedagogies and our futures. The Educational Forum, 85 (4), 364 – 376. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2021.1957634</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pearson, P. D., Palincsar, A. S., Biancarosa, G., &amp; Berman, A. I. (2020). Reaping the rewards of the reading for understanding initiative. National Academy of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pearson, P. D., Valencia, S. W., &amp; Wixson, K. (2014). Complicating the world of reading assessment: Toward better assessments for better teaching. Theory Into Practice, 53 (3), 236 – 246. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.916958</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C., &amp; Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18 (1), 22 – 37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poe, M., Elliot, N., Cogan, J. A., &amp; Nurudeen, T. G. (2014). The legal and the local: Using disparate impact analysis to understand the consequences of writing assessment. College Composition &amp; Communication, 65 (4), 588 – 611. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc201425448</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poe, M., &amp; Zhang-Wu, Q. (2020). Super-diversity as a framework to promote justice: Designing program assessment for multilingual writing outcomes. Composition Forum, 44, 1 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poe, M., Oliveri, M. E., &amp; Elliot, N. (2023). The standards will never be enough: A racial justice extension. Applied Measurement in Education, 36 (3), 193 – 215. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2023.2214656</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rameka, L. K. (2011). Being Māori: culturally relevant assessment in early childhood education. Early Years, 31 (3), 245 – 256. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2011.614222</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&amp;D program in reading comprehension. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph%5freports/2005/MR1465.pdf">www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph%5freports/2005/MR1465.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Randall, J. (2022, November). Assessment Reparations?; We Got Next: A Call to Action to the Measurement Community [Paper presentation]. 43rd Annual Charles H. Thompson Lecture-Colloquium. Howard University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Randall, J. (2021). "Color-Neutral" is not a thing: Redefining construct definition and representation through a justice-oriented critical antiracist lens. Educational Measurement, 40 (4), 82 – 90. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12429</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Randall, J., Poe, M., &amp; Slomp, D. (2021). Ain't oughta be in the dictionary: Getting to justice by dismantling anti-black literacy assessment practices. Journal of Adolescent &amp; Adult Literacy, 64 (5), 594 – 599. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1142</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Randall, J., Poe, M., Slomp, D., &amp; Oliveri, M. (2024). Our validity looks like justice. Does yours? Language Testing, 41 (1), 203 – 219. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322231202947</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Randall, J., Slomp, D., Poe, M., &amp; Oliveri, M. (2022). Disrupting White supremacy in assessment: Toward a justice-oriented, anti-racist validity framework. Educational Assessment, 27 (2), 170 – 178. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1366391 https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2022.2042682</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Revised ed.). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674042582</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rea-Dickins, P. (1997). So, why do we need relationships with stakeholders in language testing? A view from the UK. Language Testing, 14 (3), 304 – 314. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229701400307</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reinking, D., Hruby, G. G., &amp; Risko, V. J. (2023). Legislating phonics: Settled science or political polemics? Teachers College Record, 125 (1), 104 – 131. https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681231155688</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubery, M. (2022). Reader's block: A history of reading difference. Stanford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rupp, A. A., Ferne, T., &amp; Choi, H. (2006). How assessing reading comprehension with multiple-choice questions shapes the construct: A cognitive processing perspective. Language Testing, 23 (4), 441 – 474. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532206lt337oa</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sabatini, J. P. (2005). What does it mean to comprehend or construct meaning in multimedia environments: Thoughts on cognitive and assessment construct development. In T. Trabasso, J. P. Sabatini, D. C. Massaro, &amp; R. C. Calfee (Eds.), From orthography to pedagogy: Essays in Honor of Richard L. Venezky (pp. 149 – 172). Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sabatini, J., O'Reilly, T., &amp; Deane, P. (2013). Preliminary reading literacy assessment framework: Foundation and rationale for assessment and system design (ETS Research Report No. RR-13-30). Educational Testing Service.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sabatini, J., O'Reilly, T., Halderman, L., &amp; Bruce, K. (2014). Broadening the scope of reading comprehension using scenario-based assessments: Preliminary findings and challenges. L'Année Psychologique, 114 (04), 693 – 723. https://doi.org/10.4074/S0003503314004059</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sabatini, J., O'Reilly, T., Weeks, J., &amp; Wang, Z. (2020). Engineering a 21st century reading comprehension assessment system utilizing scenario-based assessment techniques. International Journal of Testing, 20 (1), 1 – 23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2018.1551224</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sabatini, J., Weeks, J., O'Reilly, T., Bruce, K., Steinberg, J., &amp; Chao, Z. (2019). SARA reading components tests, RISE forms: Technical adequacy and test design, 3rd edition (Research Report No. RR-15-32). Educational Testing Service. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12076</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schissel, J. (2024). Humanizing assessment: Decolonizing, historicizing, and communing with language-minoritized communities. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 2024, 1 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2024.2339331</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schissel, J. L., De Korne, H., &amp; López-Gopar, M. (2021). Grappling with translanguaging for teaching and assessment in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts: Teacher perspectives from Oaxaca, Mexico. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24 (3), 340 – 356. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1463965</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shanahan, T., &amp; Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78 (1), 40 – 59. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.78.1.v62444321p602101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L. (2021). Is the science of reading just the science of reading English? Reading Research Quarterly, 56 (S1), S391 – S402. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shohamy, E. (2022). Critical language testing, multilingualism, and social justice. TESOL Quarterly, 56 (4), 1445 – 1457. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3185</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shohamy, E. (2011). Assessing multilingual competencies: Adopting construct valid assessment policies. The Modern Language Journal, 95 (3), 418 – 429. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/i40056908">www.jstor.org/stable/i40056908</ulink> https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01210.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests. A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. Longman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sireci, S. (2020). Standardization and UNDERSTANDardization in educational assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 39 (3), 100 – 105. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12377</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sireci, S. G., Wells, C., &amp; Hu, H. (2014, April). Using internal structure validity evidence to evaluate test accommodations [Paper presentation]. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Philadelphia.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slomp, D. (2016). An integrated design and appraisal framework for ethical writing assessment. Journal of Writing Assessment, 9 (1), 1 – 18. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4bg9003k</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slomp, D. H., Corrigan, J. A., &amp; Sugimoto, T. (2014). A framework for using consequential validity evidence in evaluating large-scale writing assessments: A Canadian study. Research in the Teaching of English, 48 (3), 276 – 302. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte201424579</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slomp, D. H., Oliveri, M. E., &amp; Elliot, N. (2021). Afterword: Meeting the challenges of workplace English communication in the 21st century. The Journal of Writing Analytics, 5 (1), 342 – 370. https://doi.org/10.37514/JWA-J.2021.5.1.11</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow, C. (2018). Simple and not-so-simple views of reading. Remedial and Special Education, 39 (5), 313 – 316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518770288</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solano-Flores, G. (2019). Examining cultural responsiveness in large-scale assessment: The matrix of evidence for validity argumentation. Frontiers in Education, 4, 43. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00043</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Standards Management Committee. (2023, December 13). Call for nominations: Co-chairs and members of the joint committee (JC) for the revision of the Standards. AERA, APA, and NCME. https://<ulink href="http://www.aera.net/Portals/38/JC-call-for-nominations-20231108.pdf?ver=%5fZeFCifh7pHQ4oXf8DNWEQ%3d%3d&amp;utm%5fsource=Informz&amp;utm%5fmedium=email&amp;utm%5fcampaign=test">www.aera.net/Portals/38/JC-call-for-nominations-20231108.pdf?ver=%5fZeFCifh7pHQ4oXf8DNWEQ%3d%3d&amp;utm%5fsource=Informz&amp;utm%5fmedium=email&amp;utm%5fcampaign=test</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Statistics Canada. (2021). Profile table: Brossard, Ville (V) Quebec, census subdivision. Retrieved from https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&amp;SearchText=Brossard&amp;GENDERlist=1&amp;STATISTIClist=1,4&amp;DGUIDlist=2021A00052458007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stevens, E. A., Austin, C., Moore, C., Scammacca, N., Boucher, A. N., &amp; Vaughn, S. (2021). Current state of the evidence: Examining the effects of Orton-Gillingham reading interventions for students with or at risk for word-level reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 87 (4), 397 – 417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402921993406</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stobart, G. (2008). Testing times: The uses and abuses of assessment. Routledge, a Taylor &amp; Francis Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trumbull, E., &amp; Nelson-Barber, S. (2019). The ongoing quest for culturally-responsive assessment for Indigenous students in the U.S. Frontiers in Education, 4 (40), 1 – 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00040</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Uccelli, P., Galloway, E. P., Barr, C. D., Meneses, A., &amp; Dobbs, C. L. (2015). Beyond vocabulary: Exploring cross-disciplinary academic-language proficiently and its association with reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50 (3), 337 – 356. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/43497225">www.jstor.org/stable/43497225</ulink> https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United Nations. (n.d.) Universal declaration of human rights. https://<ulink href="http://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights">www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wagner, R. K., Beal, B., Zirps, F. A., &amp; Spencer, M. (2021). A model-based meta-analytic examination of specific reading comprehension deficit: How prevalent is it and does the simple view of reading account for it? Annals of Dyslexia, 71 (2), 260 – 281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-021-00232-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Warren, B., Vossoughi, S., Rosebery, A. S., Bang, M., &amp; Taylor, E. V. (2020). Multiple ways of knowing: Reimagining disciplinary learning. In N. S. Nasir, C. D. Lee, R. Pea, and M. McKinney Eds.), Handbook of the cultural foundations of learning (pp. 277 – 293). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203774977</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, M. (2004). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wyse, D., &amp; Bradbury, A. (2022). Reading wars or reading reconciliation? A critical examination of robust research evidence, curriculum policy and teachers' practices for teaching phonics and reading. Review of Education, 10 (1), 1 – 53. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3314</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Elena Forzani; Julie Corrigan; David Slomp and Jennifer Randall</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib143" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib134" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib125" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib120" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib142" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib128" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib131" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib144" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib117" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib163" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref149"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref158"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib124" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref163"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib127" firstref="ref165"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib123" firstref="ref166"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib141" firstref="ref169"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib135" firstref="ref171"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref172"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref177"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref181"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib133" firstref="ref182"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib139" firstref="ref183"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref187"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref198"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref201"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref204"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref209"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref210"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl103" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref211"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl104" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref212"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl105" bibid="bib145" firstref="ref213"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl106" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref216"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl107" bibid="bib137" firstref="ref217"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl108" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref222"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl109" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref223"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl110" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref229"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl111" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref231"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl112" bibid="bib129" firstref="ref233"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl113" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref236"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl114" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref237"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl115" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref240"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl116" bibid="bib130" firstref="ref241"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl117" bibid="bib140" firstref="ref242"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl118" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref243"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl119" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref247"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl120" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref250"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl121" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref258"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl122" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref259"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl123" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref260"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl124" bibid="bib132" firstref="ref264"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl125" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref265"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl126" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref277"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl127" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref278"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl128" bibid="bib136" firstref="ref279"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1452417 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Prioritizing Equitable Social Outcomes with and for Diverse Readers: A Conceptual Framework for the Development and Use of Justice-Based Reading Assessment – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Elena+Forzani%22">Elena Forzani</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2935-7129">0000-0003-2935-7129</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Julie+Corrigan%22">Julie Corrigan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3304-8150">0000-0003-3304-8150</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22David+Slomp%22">David Slomp</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9392-7478">0000-0001-9392-7478</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jennifer+Randall%22">Jennifer Randall</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4728-8710">0000-0003-4728-8710</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Psychologist%22"><i>Educational Psychologist</i></searchLink>. 2024 59(4):291-314. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 24 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2024 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Tests%22">Reading Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Evaluation%22">Student Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Diversity%22">Student Diversity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Culture+Fair+Tests%22">Culture Fair Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Justice%22">Social Justice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Minority+Group+Students%22">Minority Group Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Participation%22">Student Participation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Involvement%22">Family Involvement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Needs%22">Student Needs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Rights%22">Student Rights</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Skills%22">Reading Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Construction%22">Test Construction</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1080/00461520.2024.2418400 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0046-1520<br />1532-6985 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Scholarship on the science of reading (SoR) has, in some instances, taken up more narrow views of reading in discussions and instantiations of reading assessment that do not center equity and justice, especially in schools. This can lead to less valid and even harmful reading assessment, especially for students from historically marginalized communities with diverse language, cultural, and neurological differences. Here, we draw on critically-minded reading research, as well as on work in equity-oriented educational assessment, to inform a justice-based reading assessment framework that can guide research, theory, policy, and practice. Using an equity-oriented and justice-based lens, the framework outlines three interwoven components: (1) relational and humanizing assessment practices; (2) justice-based products and outcomes; and, (3) a critical construct of reading. The framework compels designers, developers, and users to center the needs of rights-holders, and especially those from historically marginalized communities, throughout the assessment process. To do so, the framework outlines five principles that include orienting to equity and justice; prioritizing humanizing and critical assessment practices; grounding assessment in a complex, dynamic, and critical construct of reading for diverse populations; designing for justice-based social consequences, and engaging in critical debrief throughout. These principles guide eight phases of assessment, which we outline in detail. Finally, we discuss conceptual contributions as well as practical implications. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2024 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1452417 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1452417 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/00461520.2024.2418400 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 24 StartPage: 291 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Reading Tests Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Evaluation Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Diversity Type: general – SubjectFull: Culture Fair Tests Type: general – SubjectFull: Social Justice Type: general – SubjectFull: Minority Group Students Type: general – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Participation Type: general – SubjectFull: Family Involvement Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Needs Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Rights Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Skills Type: general – SubjectFull: Test Construction Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Prioritizing Equitable Social Outcomes with and for Diverse Readers: A Conceptual Framework for the Development and Use of Justice-Based Reading Assessment Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Elena Forzani – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Julie Corrigan – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: David Slomp – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Jennifer Randall IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2024 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0046-1520 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1532-6985 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 59 – Type: issue Value: 4 Titles: – TitleFull: Educational Psychologist Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
