Criteria to Select Article for “SEM for Good”

Criteria that the Chapter Authors Considered when Selecting an Article that Used SEM to Uncover, Explore, or Explain an Equity or Social Justice Issue

Research Questions (RQs) or Hypotheses or Purpose of Study (one of these options below must be a “yes”)

• Are some RQs or hypotheses explicitly focused on equity, inclusion, or social justice issues/concepts?
• Do RQs or hypotheses aim to explore/address disparities or promote fairness/equity? OR….
• Do RQs or hypothesis aim to explore, operationalize, or measure equity or social justice concepts?

Introduction

• Does the introduction include summaries or references to equity or social justice theories, frameworks, or previous studies concerning equity, inclusion or social justice?
• Are marginalized or underrepresented groups discussed/focused on in Intro?

SEM Technique was Used (this must be a “yes”)

• Path analysis, CFA, Full SEM, Invariance Testing, MIMIC or Latent Means Modeling
• Other analyses (e.g., GLMs, descriptive stats, EFA) may also be completed but SEM is used to address at least 1 RQ/hypothesis related to equity, inclusion, or social justice. The SEM analyses aren’t a minor part of the paper but rather are key to addressing at least 1 major RQ or hypothesis.

Methodology

• Are research methods designed to capture data on equity, inclusion, or social justice issues/concepts?
• Is there a focus on diverse or marginalized populations in the sampling?

Data Analysis

• Do data analyses explore disparities, inequalities, or differential relations across various groups? OR…
• Do data analyses uncover how to (not) operationalize and measure equity or social justice concepts?

Results and Discussion (this must be a “yes”)

• Do the findings explore or reveal disparities, inequities, or social justice concerns? OR….
• Do the findings focus on ways to (not) measure constructs related to equity, inclusion & social justice?
• Is there a discussion on the implications for equity, inclusion, or social justice?

Recommendations

• Are recommendations provided to address identified inequities or promote social justice?
• Are actionable steps suggested for policymakers, assessment practitioners, or communities?

Non-Deficit Language with a Focus on Systems of Inequities (this must be a “yes”)

• Deficit language refers to framing marginalized groups in terms of perceived shortcomings or deficiencies. For example, describing students from certain racial backgrounds as “underperforming” without considering the broader context. This type of language can reinforce stereotypes and blame individuals for systemic issues, perpetuating a narrative that marginalized groups are inherently less capable or responsible for their own disadvantages. By avoiding deficit language, researchers can empower marginalized groups by recognizing their strengths and resilience. It shifts the narrative from one of blame to one of understanding and advocacy. Deficit language should be AVOIDED in the selected article!
• Focus on Systems of Inequities: Instead of attributing disparities to individual or group deficiencies, the study focuses on the systemic and structural factors that create and maintain inequities. This includes examining policies, practices, and societal norms that disadvantage certain groups. By shifting the focus to systems of inequities, researchers can highlight how institutional racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination are embedded in societal structures. This approach aims to uncover the root causes of disparities and advocate for systemic change. This approach provides a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of disparities. It acknowledges that inequalities are not the result of individual failings but are produced and sustained by broader systemic issues. An example study on educational outcomes might avoid saying “students of color underperform on standardized tests.” Instead, it would examine how standardized testing practices, school funding disparities, and other systemic factors contribute to observed differences in test scores. This approach not only provides a clearer picture of the issue but also points towards actionable solutions that address the root causes of inequities.

KEY TAKEAWAYS for Selecting an Article to Review:

• Article doesn’t need to apply Quantitative Critical Race Theory (QuantCrit) and all of its tenets or be an example of CritSEM, but a QuantCrit or CritSEM approach would certainly align with these criteria.
• To proceed with an article for “SEM for Good”, criteria #1, 3, 6, 8 must be answered with a “yes”.
• The more criteria answered “yes”, the more aligned the article for this project.