How University Entrance Examinations Can Threaten Validity in Higher Education Admissions

Hossein Salarian

doi:10.61227/iltt.v1i1.177

Authors

Hossein Salarian University of Tehran

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61227/iltt.v1i1.177

Keywords:

University entrance exam, High-stakes test, Positive/negative washback, Stakeholders

Abstract

Although university entrance examinations are designed to promote fairness and objectivity in admissions, they can at times compromise the validity of the process by prioritizing test-taking strategies over genuine academic ability or potential. To this end, this study explor the validity, fairness, and predictive value of university entrance examinations among 400 students via a mixed-methods research design. A cross-sectional survey was carried out to collect quantitative data analyzed through statistical software (SPSS), while semi-structured interviews supplied qualitative depth to explore the nuances behind the statistical trends. Also, ANOVA tests assessed differences across regions. Interview transcriptions were coded through NVIVO 8 and analyzed using thematic analysis. Moreover, academic records (GPA and entrance exam scores) obtained to investigate predictive validity. Quantitative results showed moderate acceptance of entrance exams' predictive power, but significant concerns around fairness, regional equity, and psychological stress. Semi-structured interviews revealed that many students felt the exams forced rote learning and unfairly favored urban, well-resourced applicants. Students reported stress, anxiety, and health impacts from the exam's high-stakes nature. Prior research supports these findings, noting GPA as a stronger long-term predictor of performance. Overall, the study highlights that while entrance exams can motivate, they risk undermining fairness and mental health. Reform efforts, including multi-dimensional admissions models combining GPA, interviews, and personal statements, are recommended to achieve greater equity and validity in higher education admissions. This study has some theoretical and practical implications along with providing some suggestions for further studies to improve it.

References

Alderson, J. C., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (1996). TOEFL preparation courses: A study of washback. Language Testing, 13(3), 280–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229601300304

Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.2.115

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press.

Bailey, K. M. (1996). Working for washback: A review of the washback concept in language testing. Language Testing, 13(3), 257–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229601300303

Bailey, K. M. (1999). Washback in language testing (TOEFL Monograph Series No. MS-15; Research Report No. RM-99-04). Educational Testing Service.

Bennett, R. E., Kane, M. T., & Bridgeman, B. (2011, April). Theory of action and validity argument in the context of through-course summative assessment [Paper presentation]. Invitational Research Symposium on Through-Course Summative Assessment, Atlanta, GA, United States.

Bird, K. A., Castleman, B. L., Mabel, Z., & Song, Y. (2021). Bringing transparency to predictive analytics: A systematic comparison of predictive modeling methods in higher education. AERA Open, 7, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211037630

Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1061–1071. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1061

Boud, D., & Bearman, M. (2024). The assessment challenge of social and collaborative learning in higher education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 56(5), 459–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2022.2114346

Brennan, R. L. (2006). Perspectives on the evolution and future of educational measurement. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 1–16). Praeger.

Chapelle, C. A., & Voss, E. (2021). Validity argument in language testing: Case studies of validation research. Cambridge University Press.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.

Flake, J. K., & Fried, E. I. (2020). Measurement schmeasurement: Questionable measurement practices and how to avoid them. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(4), 456–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920952393

Frederiksen, J. R., & Collins, A. (1989). A systems approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher, 18(9), 27–32. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018009027

Fulcher, G. (2014). Philosophy and language testing. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assessment (Vol. 1, pp. 1–17). John Wiley & Sons.

Gipps, C. V. (1994). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. Falmer Press.

Haertel, E. H., & Herman, J. L. (2005). A historical perspective on validity arguments for accountability testing. In J. L. Herman & E. H. Haertel (Eds.), Uses and misuses of data for educational accountability and improvement (pp. 1–34). Blackwell Publishing.

Haladyna, T. M., Nolen, S. B., & Haas, N. S. (1991). Raising standardized achievement test scores and the origins of test score pollution. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 2–7. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X020005002

Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge University Press.

Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Penguin.

Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000

Kelly, S., Olney, A. M., Donnelly, P., Nystrand, M., & D’Mello, S. K. (2018). Automatically measuring question authenticity in real-world classrooms. Educational Researcher, 47(7), 451–464. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18785613

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Madaus, G. F. (1988). The influence of testing on the curriculum. In L. N. Tanner (Ed.), Critical issues in curriculum: Eighty-seventh yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part 1, pp. 83–121). University of Chicago Press.

Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage Publications.

Moses, M. S., & Nanna, M. J. (2007). The testing culture and the persistence of high stakes testing reforms. Education and Culture, 23(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1353/eac.2007.0003

Schimmack, U. (2021). The validation crisis in psychology. Meta-Psychology, 5, Article 1645. https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2019.1645

Shohamy, E. (1997). Testing methods, testing consequences: Are they ethical? Are they fair? Language Testing, 14(3), 340–349.

Thomas, R. M. (2005). High-stakes testing: Coping with collateral damage. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Wall, D. (2000). The impact of high-stakes testing on teaching and learning: Can this be predicted or controlled? System, 28(4), 499–509.

Wall, D. (2005). The impact of high-stakes examinations on classroom teaching: A case study using insights from testing and innovation theory. Cambridge University Press.

Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M. C., Regnell, B., & Wesslén, A. (2000). Experimentation in software engineering: An introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Ysseldyke, J., Nelson, J. R., Christenson, S., Johnson, D. R., Dennis, A., Triezenberg, H., Sharpe, M., & Hawes, M. (2004). What we know and need to know about the consequences of high-stakes testing for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71(1), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290407100106

Zheng, Y., Nydick, S., Huang, S., & Zhang, S. (2024). MxML (exploring the relationship between measurement and machine learning): Current state of the field. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 43(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12594