Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This commentary critically engages with Cheng's systematic comparison of test fairness and algorithmic fairness, emphasizing the importance of mapping the entire testing workflow to the AI/ML fairness paradigm. It highlights the conceptual distinction between equality and equity, as well as the significance of causality in fairness research, which are often overlooked in current discussions. The combined insights from both the focus article and this commentary pave the way for future interdisciplinary research on fairness in psychometrics and AI/ML.
Bridging the gap between psychometrics and AI, this commentary reveals how a nuanced understanding of equality, equity, and causality can transform fairness research.
This is an invited commentary on the Psychometrika focus article "Fairness Issues and Evaluation in Psychometrics and AI/ML: What Can We Learn from Each Field?" by Ying Cheng (2026, doi:10.1017/psy.2026.10110). Cheng offers a systematic comparison between long-standing test fairness and modern algorithmic fairness. Her mapping of the entire testing workflow onto the AI/ML fairness paradigm, rather than only the final selection stage, is a crucial contribution to interdisciplinary fairness research. This commentary extends her discussion by examining two conceptual issues: the distinction between equality and equity, and the role of causality in fairness research. Together, the focus article and this commentary point to directions for future fairness research across the psychometrics and AI/ML communities.