Do individual differences in test-takers' appraisal of admission testing compromise measurement fairness?

Due to the increased use of cognitive tests in admission testing there have been renewed concerns that individual differences in test anxiety induces measurement bias in cognitive tests and therefore call their valid and fair use in admission testing into question. Prior studies examining measurement invariance across individual differences in test anxiety yielded mixed results. While some studies indicated measurement bias due to test anxiety, others failed to confirm this hypothesis. Some researchers hypothesized that the extent to which test anxiety induces measurement bias in cognitive tests by reducing attentional resources available to the test-taker while solving the test items, depends on their cognitive appraisal of the test-taking situation in terms of their confidence in their ability to handle the task at hand (testing problem efficacy), the relevance of the goal to do well in the admission test (goal relevance), and their perceived level of control (agency). The present study was conducted to test this hypothesis. A large sample (N = 1628) of medical school applicants was tested in the real-life admission testing situation. Using latent profile analysis, we identified four groups of test-takers differing in their appraisal of goal relevance, testing problem efficacy, worry, task-irrelevant thinking, and agency. Contrary to our predictions item response theory analyses indicated measurement invariance across the four latent profiles for all four cognitive ability tests and all four knowledge tests administered in the present study. This finding contradicts theoretical models, which postulate that individual differences in test-takers appraisal of the admission testing situation and their emotional reactions to it, compromise the measurement fairness of cognitive admission tests.