Workshops

A1. Work Week: A space for convening

2026-07-20 | 1 PM EDT
Presenter(s): David Sul, Ed.D., Sul & Associates International; University of San Francisco; University of the Virgin Islands
Description

This opening talk asks where Critical Quantitative Methods stands, and frames the Work Week as a space where scholars convene to build what comes next.

Criticality Statement

Sul situates assessment as a force for uplifting communities. His focus on large-scale culturally specific assessment has emerged after a decades-long career as an educator and program evaluator. His work is a descendant of Critical Pedagogy (Freire, 1970), Culturally Relevant Teaching (Ladson-Billings, 1994), and Culturally Responsive Assessment (Hood, 1998). Through the use of modern measurement theory, Sul offers culturally specific assessment as a means to move beyond a dependency on Likert-based measures to produce the numerical values necessary for the conduct of Critical Quantitative research including QuantCrit (Gillborn, et al., 2018) research.

A2. A Critical Quantitative Review of Wendy Zagray Warren’s “An Illusion of Equity: The Legacy of Eugenics in Today’s Education

2026-07-20 | 2 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Benjamin Brumley, Ph.D., West Chester University
Description

This critical book review examines the historical and contemporary relationship between standardized testing, eugenic thought, and educational inequality through a critical quantitative reading of Wendy Zagray Warren’s An Illusion of Equity: The Legacy of Eugenics in Today’s Education. The review is grounded in literature from QuantCrit, critical race theory, and critical quantitative methods, all of which challenge the assumption that data and testing are neutral tools. Scholars in critical quantitative traditions argue that numbers are socially produced and that categories such as race, class, and ability are shaped by institutional power rather than discovered objectively. Likewise, historical work on intelligence testing and psychometrics has shown that large-scale assessment emerged alongside racial and hereditarian projects that treated hierarchy as natural and scientifically defensible. Taken together, this literature suggests that modern testing systems cannot be understood only as technical instruments; they must also be analyzed as cultural and political mechanisms that legitimize inequality and hierarchy.

The purpose of this critical book review is to investigate how Warren’s text contributes to contemporary debates about testing, equity, and educational governance. More specifically, the book review asks:

(1) How does Warren trace the connection between eugenics and present-day educational testing?

(2) In what ways does her argument align with or extend critical quantitative scholarship on data, power, and inequality? and

(3) What does her critique suggest about the continued role of standardized testing in reproducing class-based hierarchies in U.S. education?

The problem motivating this study is that standardized testing continues to be framed in public discourse as objective, meritocratic, and necessary, even though its historical foundations and present-day consequences suggest otherwise. By revisiting Warren’s intervention through a critical quantitative lens, this study seeks to clarify the measurement stakes of her argument and to situate her work within broader struggles over educational justice.

The implications of this critical book review are practical, theoretical and pedagogical. For pedagogy, it calls educators to reconsider assessment practices that privilege ranking over authentic learning and the over reliance on the Educational Testing Service. For theory, it strengthens the case for bringing critical theory and quantitative inquiry into closer conversation in teaching the history of educational testing. For practice, it suggests that more democratic, community-accountable, and teacher-driven forms of assessment are necessary if education is to move beyond the illusion of equity and toward a more just future.

Criticality Statement

My research is situated within critical theory because it examines education as a site where structural inequality is reproduced through everyday institutional practices. Drawing from critical race theory, antiracist scholarship, and critical quantitative traditions, I treat categories such as race, class, and ability as historically constructed and politically maintained rather than natural and organic. In that sense, my research is critical not only because it critiques inequity, but because it asks how dominant forms of knowledge become normalized and how they might be reimagined otherwise.

A3. Listening to Psychometric Misfit: Beyond Validity Through Measurement Disjuncture

2026-07-20 | 3 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Crystal Luce, Ph.D., University of Colorado - Denver
Description

Quantitative measurement is often presented as objective and culturally neutral, yet Critical Quantitative scholarship argues that all measures are shaped by the assumptions, values, and contexts in which they are developed. Traditional psychometric validation seeks evidence that an instrument is reliable and valid across populations; however, when measures demonstrate poor fit, multidimensionality, or differential functioning, these findings are typically interpreted as technical limitations rather than opportunities to question the assumptions embedded within the instrument itself. Drawing on the concept of measurement disjuncture, this presentation argues that psychometric misfit can serve as evidence of culturally situated understandings of trauma rather than simply measurement error.

This study examines the Structured Trauma-Related Experiences and Symptoms Screener (STRESS), a trauma screening instrument developed primarily within Western conceptualizations of post-traumatic stress, to explore how psychometric evidence can inform critical interpretations of measurement. The study asks: (1) To what extent does the STRESS demonstrate construct validity and measurement equivalence among migrant youth and their caregivers? and (2) How can psychometric evidence be interpreted through the lens of measurement disjuncture to identify culturally embedded assumptions within quantitative measurement? Rather than asking only whether the instrument ""works,"" this study investigates what psychometric performance reveals about the relationship between standardized trauma measurement and culturally diverse lived experiences.

Using secondary data collected from a community-based mental health program serving migrant families, the study employed a comprehensive psychometric framework integrating Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses examined the internal structure of the instrument, while Rasch modeling evaluated dimensionality, rating scale functioning, and item performance. Differential Item Functioning and multi-group analyses were used to investigate measurement equivalence across versions of the STRESS and participant groups. Findings were interpreted not solely as indicators of statistical adequacy but as evidence for critically examining the cultural assumptions underlying trauma measurement.

Results demonstrated variation in factor structure, item functioning, and measurement equivalence across versions of the instrument, suggesting that some aspects of trauma symptom measurement may not transfer uniformly across populations. While the study is limited by its reliance on secondary data from a single community-based organization and cannot determine the specific cultural mechanisms underlying observed differences, the findings demonstrate the value of interpreting psychometric evidence alongside critical theories of measurement rather than viewing statistical misfit exclusively as instrument deficiency.

Theoretically, this work proposes a shift in how psychometric validation is understood within Critical Quantitative Methods. Rather than treating psychometrics solely as a technical process for establishing validity, this presentation positions psychometric analyses as tools for interrogating whose experiences are represented within quantitative measures and whose experiences may remain obscured. Interpreting psychometric misfit through the lens of measurement disjuncture expands traditional approaches to validity and offers a framework for developing more culturally responsive, equitable, and theoretically informed quantitative research."

Criticality Statement

My research is situated within Critical Quantitative inquiry, which challenges the assumption that quantitative measures are objective and culturally neutral. I examine how psychometric evidence can be used not only to evaluate technical validity but also to identify culturally embedded assumptions within quantitative instruments. By integrating psychometrics with concepts such as measurement disjuncture and culturally responsive evaluation, my work seeks to expand how researchers interpret validity, equity, and representation in quantitative research.

B1. Are metrics destroying your mission? How standardised evaluation pathologises marginalised communities and undermines care.

2026-07-21 | 1 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Dr Hannah Griffin-James, Independent Scholar
Description

In research and evaluation certain choices are hidden or invisible. When I was a positivist I referred to these as assumptions.

In evaluation one of the key choices is how to measure change. Yet most of the organisations I consult with bring me in because of the exact same friction: their metrics feel misaligned with their mission. When choosing metrics, we rely on assumptions that can undermine social change, and it’s these that I posit are driving this lack of alignment, and ultimately undermining missions.

This is not to undervalue the effort, care and best intentions of people working to align their metrics with their mission. To be clear, these choices aren’t inherently “bad” or “wrong”. They are the result of wider societal pressures. As Giroux (2022, p.87) argues it has become ‘more difficult to translate private troubles into broader, systemic considerations’ when issues are reduced to individual responsibility. This tension is particularly pertinent for relational programmes.

In this talk, I lean on the tenets of CritQuant to explore this dichotomy and to unpack a term from philosophy that is as provocative as it is urgent: disposability.

Criticality Statement

I position my research at the boundary of evaluation and systemic advocacy to expose how institutional power dictates the trajectory of social change programmes. I use evidence to gently challenge funders and decision-makers to confront their systemic influence over what constitutes a "fact" or a "success". My work actively combats the natural urge to simplify "super wicked problems" (Rittel & Webber, 1973) into neat, artificial boxes. Defaulting to Ockham's razor - always hunting for the simplest path - safeguards institutional comfort while often derailing genuine social change. This can be seen in this morning's discussions with organisations providing photographic proof of highly sensitive workshops; a transactional perceived requirement that values quickly checking boxes over participant safety, anonymity, and trust.

B2. Collaboration as a Critical Act

2026-07-21 | 2 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Work Week Attendees
Description

This working session will utilize the Work Week space to capture ideas and aspirations for future collaborations.

Criticality Statement

Critical Quantitative Methods, stands against a paradigm that presents quantification as neutral and its practitioners as interchangeable. Under that paradigm the researcher who questions the numbers works alone, and isolated work is easy to dismiss. Collaboration, then, is not a convenience for this field; it is a Critical act. This session treats this Work Week session as a site of Critical praxis: when people build together, they define rigor, method, and legitimacy on their own terms rather than borrow them from the gatekeepers. The session is the collaboration it names, turning a dispersed field into a convening space.

B3. Critically Exploring Race and Ethnicity as Grouping Variables in Differential Item Functioning Studies

2026-07-21 | 3 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Malitsitso Moteane, Ph.D., Postdoc Research Associate at Winston-Salem State
Description

Differential item functioning (DIF) analysis exists because of race. Following the Civil Rights Act of 1964, legal challenges to gatekeeper tests required ostensibly objective measures of test bias, and race and ethnicity — as protected classes — became the primary grouping variables for mandated DIF analyses. Yet the technical apparatus that emerged deliberately severed the statistical detection of differential functioning from any claim about racial bias, leaving DIF a procedure that runs on racial categories while remaining silent about what those categories are. Six decades of methodological refinement have produced increasingly sophisticated detection methods, but almost no scholarship on how the grouping variables themselves are conceptualized, defined, and constructed. A search of the field's nine leading psychometric journals from 1940 to 2022 returned no articles addressing the definition or operationalization of race or ethnicity as variables in psychometric analysis. Introductory psychometric textbooks do not define them either. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing invoke race and ethnicity as population-partitioning variables and as factors that may affect test performance, without defining either construct or offering a theoretical account of why they would.

This presentation reports the quantitative strand of an explanatory sequential mixed methods study examining that silence empirically. From 279 records published between 2015 and 2020 across four databases, 120 peer-reviewed DIF articles using race and/or ethnicity as grouping variables were analyzed for how these variables were conceptualized, theoretically framed, and operationalized. The corpus is disciplinarily revealing in itself: 43% public health, 38% psychology and psychiatry, and only 17% education — evidence that DIF has migrated well beyond the field that developed it, carrying its unexamined assumptions along.

The findings describe a field operating without conceptual foundations. Seventy-eight percent of articles provided no definition of race or ethnicity; only four articles across the entire corpus acknowledged their socially constructed nature. Race and ethnicity were used interchangeably within single articles, including studies that named race as the grouping variable while analyzing categories drawn from ethnicity items. Eighty-three percent took a purely exploratory approach, with no a priori hypotheses about which items would function differentially for which groups — race entered the analysis as a variable to be scanned rather than theorized. Thirty percent of articles did not state how participants were sorted into racial or ethnic groups at all. Twenty-six percent conducted only a single binary comparison, frequently collapsing all non-focal participants into a residual """"the rest"""" category. White respondents served as the reference group in all but three of the 84 studies in which they appeared, and 35 studies excluded racial or ethnic groups outright, most often citing small samples — a justification that, applied repeatedly to the same populations, functions as erasure.

The presentation situates these patterns as a critical quantitative problem rather than a reporting-quality one. When categories are neither defined nor theorized, DIF results cannot be compared, replicated, or accumulated into usable knowledge for test developers — and the practice risks reifying social categories as fixed attributes and reproducing deficit logic under the authority of statistical objectivity.

This work been twice desk-rejected by measurement's flagship journals, the session is offered as a working one. I will bring the reviewer response as data about the field's epistemic boundaries, and invite the group to help think through two questions: what minimum reporting standards for racial grouping variables would be both rigorous and adoptable, and where such an argument can find a hearing.

Criticality Statement

My research aims to center critical quantative methods. It is currently an amalgam of CRQI and QuantCrit and often links both to CRT. When examining and using quantitative methods and/or tools, I start with tracing the history of said methods and/or tools and provide an account of whether, when and how their safe use with Black populations had been established.

C1. Randomization Without Erasure: Toward a Culturally Responsive Framework for Randomized Controlled Trials

2026-07-22 | 1 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Fatima Zahra, Ph.D., University of Tennessee at Knoxville
Description

Randomized controlled trials occupy a privileged position in the hierarchy of evidence, yet their epistemological foundations rest on assumptions of equivalence, universality, and context-independence that are structurally incompatible with the lived realities of marginalized communities. This paper advances a culturally responsive RCT framework that integrates QuantCrit principles, community-based participatory research ethics, and decolonial evaluation theory into experimental design, without surrendering rigor. Drawing on fieldwork in Rohingya refugee communities in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh, I examine how conventional RCT protocols reproduce harm: through culturally invalid instrumentation, extractive randomization schemes, and outcome metrics that reflect researcher priorities over community-defined flourishing. I propose four design principles--relational validity, contextual randomization, community-anchored outcomes, and reflexive power mapping-- that reframe the RCT as a site of methodological justice. This framework has direct implications for how QuantCrit scholars design, evaluate, and publish experimental research with communities who have historically been objects of study rather than agents of inquiry.

After the world watched Derek Chauvin murder George Floyd in 2020 during what may become the most consequential global pandemic of these times, a body of literature emerged revealing the costs of discriminating based on race & ethnicity. For example, according to Huber et al. (2021), anti-semitism caused a reduction in stock prices, dividends, return on assets, and aggregate market value fell by 1.8% of German GNP because of the Holocaust. In 2021, Buckman et al. found that gender and racial inequity cost the U. S. $51 trillion from 1990 to 2019. Furthermore, Carnevale et al. (2021) found that racial and economic injustice in post secondary education cost the U. S. $956 billion annually. Though some scholars have made meaningful progress attending to gender and sexism, scholars mention the word ‘racism’ in only three articles in the Journal of Cultural Economics (Paquet, 1989; Snowball, 2005; van Haaften-Schick & Whitaker, 2022) suggesting that the socially constructed phenomenon warrants more of cultural economists’ attention. Therefore, we investigated the primary research question, what effects does anti-Black racism have on the U. S. creative economy?

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of anti-Black racism on the U. S. creative economy via three key means: (1) anti-Black racism’s affect on the size (number of workers) of the creative economy, (2) anti-Black racism’s affect on Black workers’ earnings in the creative economy, and (3) anti-Black racism’s affect on monetized creative output in the U. S. creative economy.

Methods

To answer our research questions, we used a critical race theory of statistics (QuantCrit) approach and Becker’s (1971) economics of discrimination. To test for the effects of anti-Black racism on the U. S. creative economy, we used data from the U. S. Census Bureau retrieved through IPUMS (Ruggles et al., 2024; Ruggles et al., 2025) and estimated regressions for two primary outcome variables. We first estimated linear probability models testing for the impact of identifying as Black on the likelihood of working in the arts. We estimated separate regressions for each year for which data is available from 1850 to 2022. The regressions take the form:

ArtsOccupationi=0+1*Blacki+X*Xi+i

where ArtsOccupationi is a binary variable which takes on a value of one if the respondent is in the labor force and reports an occupation we have classified as artist, Blacki is a binary variable indicating the respondent’s race is Black, and Xi is a vector of control variables. Because earnings data first became available in 1950, we estimated these regressions for each year for which data is available from 1950 to 2022. The regressions take the form:

Ln(Income)i=0+1*Blacki+X*Xi+i.

Presenting multiple sets of estimates, and then ultimately using these various estimates to calculate ranges for costs of anti-Black racism on the creative economy, allow readers discretion and flexibility in interpreting the correct cost estimate for themselves.

Discussion & Implications

Clearly, the creative sector needs to discontinue its practice of anti-Black racism. But what incentives might compel the creative sector’s transformation towards anti-racism if money has not? As McGhee (2021) pointed out, though Black citizens in the U. S. contribute to the public coffers from which nonprofit cultural organizations, especially, draw tax deductions for their corporate, foundation, and individual donors, tax exemptions, and city, county (sometimes), state, regional (sometimes), and national government funding for culture; they endure denial of access to public services, including the arts. If Black citizens do not receive equitable access to the arts, should their tax dollars go to nonprofit cultural organizations that have actively, or passive aggressively excluded them?

Criticality Statement

My research sits at the convergence of QuantCrit, critical race theory, and decolonial epistemology, rejecting the fiction that empirical methods are separable from the political conditions that produce them. I study how algorithmic systems and evaluation infrastructures reproduce racial and colonial hierarchies—particularly for communities rendered marginal by design: Rohingya refugees, Global South learners, non-English speakers navigating AI systems built on Western linguistic norms. Drawing on Connell's Southern theory, Freire's critical pedagogy, and Kirkhart and Hood's culturally responsive evaluation tradition, I treat methodology itself as a terrain of liberation or harm. The AIRELab, which I direct, operationalizes this stance institutionally, building research programs where criticality is not a posture but a design principle.

C2. Counting the costs: Investigating the effects of anti-Black racism on the U. S. creative economy

2026-07-22 | 2 PM EDT
Presenter(s): antonio c. cuyler, University of Michigan
Description

Background

Purpose of the Study

Methods

ArtsOccupationi=0+1*Blacki+X*Xi+i

Ln(Income)i=0+1*Blacki+X*Xi+i.

Discussion & Implications

Criticality Statement

The central question of my research agenda is, "in what ways can the creative sector ensure and protect the creative justice of those historically and continuously casted as the least and most vulnerable among us?" To this end my research infuses curiosity about arts administration, entrepreneurship, leadership, & management education and practice, creative justice, cultural policy, cultural politics, and experiential learning to uncover the ways in which people access, consume, create, and disseminate culture, or not. I have published 2 books, one edited volume, one co-edited volume, 28 peer reviewed journal articles, and 8 book chapters. My most recent book, Achieving Creative Justice in the U. S. Creative Sector, operationalizes access, diversity, equity, and inclusion (ADEi) to manifest creative justice for a range of people across a variety of positionalities across the system that comprises the U. S. creative sector.

C3. Making Quantitative Methods "Stick": What Educational Psychology Can Contribute to Critical Quantitative Pedagogy

2026-07-22 | 3 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Precious Hardy, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Psychology, Harris-Stowe State University
Description

Quantitative methods courses are frequently experienced by students as intimidating, procedural, and disconnected from meaningful learning (Onwuegbuzie & Wilson, 2003; Macher et al., 2012). Within higher education, research methods and statistics instruction often emphasizes formula memorization and procedural execution while paying less attention to the cognitive and psychological processes that shape how learners engage with complex quantitative ideas (Garfield & Ben-Zvi, 2007). Existing conversations within critical quantitative pedagogy have importantly examined issues of equity, representation, power, and access in quantitative inquiry (Gutiérrez, 2013; Skovsmose, 2013); however, less attention has been given to how insights from educational psychology and learning science may contribute to more cognitively accessible and humanizing approaches to quantitative teaching and learning. This presentation draws on educational psychology, cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1988), and learning science to consider how quantitative methods instruction may be redesigned to support durable learning and student engagement, particularly within HBCU contexts where expanding access to quantitative literacy and research participation remains critically important.

The purpose of this conceptual work is to explore how instructional design, classroom environment, and learner self-beliefs shape students’ experiences within undergraduate statistics and research methods courses. In particular, this work asks: (1) How do students experience quantitative learning environments that emphasize conceptual understanding over memorization? (2) How might principles from educational psychology and learning science contribute to critical quantitative pedagogy? and (3) What instructional conditions appear to support students’ confidence, engagement, and retention of quantitative concepts? This work is informed by recurring classroom observations, informal student conversations, and formal course evaluation feedback gathered across undergraduate psychology statistics and research methods courses taught at a HBCU.

As an in-progress pedagogical and conceptual inquiry, this presentation does not report findings from a formal empirical study. Rather, the project draws from reflective teaching practices, classroom observations, student feedback, and the emerging development of a conceptual framework connecting educational psychology to quantitative pedagogy. Across courses, students have frequently described quantitative concepts as more understandable, meaningful, and “stickier” when instruction emphasizes conceptual reasoning, real-world application, visual organization, collaborative discussion, and psychologically supportive learning environments. These observations have motivated the development of an emerging framework centered on cognitive accessibility, learner meaning-making, and durable quantitative learning.

As the project develops, empirical stages may include qualitative and mixed-methods approaches designed to examine how students experience quantitative learning environments. Potential methods could include student interviews, classroom observations, reflective journals, course artifact analysis, and surveys examining students’ perceptions of quantitative learning, confidence, engagement, and cognitive load.

The work is presently exploratory, reflective, and grounded primarily in instructional experience rather than formalized empirical data collection. As such, conclusions remain tentative and developmental. At the same time, the project is significant because it seeks to bridge educational psychology, learning science, and critical quantitative pedagogy in ways that may expand conversations about who succeeds in quantitative spaces and why. Rather than framing quantitative difficulty solely as an issue of learner ability, this work considers how instructional design and educational environments may either support or constrain students’ engagement with quantitative thinking.

This talk has implications for pedagogy, theory, and practice. Pedagogically, it encourages quantitative instructors to move beyond procedural memorization toward approaches that emphasize conceptual understanding, psychological safety, and meaningful inquiry. Theoretically, it suggests that educational psychology and learning science may offer important contributions to critical quantitative pedagogy, particularly in understanding how cognition, motivation, and classroom experiences interact within quantitative learning environments. Practically, this work calls for more humanizing and cognitively accessible approaches to teaching research methods and statistics, especially for students historically underserved within quantitative educational spaces.

Criticality Statement

My research connects to critical theory through its focus on how educational systems and learning environments shape learners’ experiences with complex thinking, effort, and perceptions of ability. I am particularly interested in challenging deficit-oriented interpretations of student performance by examining how cognition, motivation, and instructional contexts interact to support or constrain learning. My work considers how inequities in access to supportive, psychologically meaningful, and cognitively accessible learning environments may influence students’ academic trajectories.

D1. Developing and Evaluating a QuantCrit-Informed Pedagogical Model for Undergraduate Research Methods: A Work in Progress

2026-07-23 | 1 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Falynn Thompson
Description

Quantitative research informs educational, healthcare, criminal justice, and public policy decisions that affect millions of people. However, quantitative methods are not inherently objective or neutral; rather, they are developed, applied, and interpreted within social, political, and historical contexts. Scholars have demonstrated that quantitative methods have historically been used to reinforce racial hierarchies and continue to perpetuate inequities when researchers fail to account for systematic factors influencing observed outcomes. Simultaneously, racially minoritized individuals remain underrepresented in research-intensive and STEM-related fields and continue to encounter barriers to undergraduate research participation, including stereotypes, microaggressions, financial constraints, limited access to mentors, and feelings of exclusion (Pierszalowski et al., 2021; Schwartz, 2012). Although undergraduate research participation has been consistently linked to improved research self-efficacy, academic success, and persistence in research careers, no empirical studies, to our knowledge, have examined whether teaching students critical approaches to quantitative research influences these outcomes. Quantitative Critical Race Theory (QuantCrit) offers a promising framework for preparing students to critically evaluate and produce quantitative evidence while promoting equity and social justice, yet its application has remained largely conceptual and has rarely been incorporated into undergraduate quantitative methods instruction.

This study seeks to develop, implement, and evaluate QuantCrit-informed pedagogical enhancements within an introductory undergraduate research methods and statistics course at a Historically Black College and University (HBCU). Specifically, the study will examine whether QuantCrit-informed instruction improves students' psychological outcomes (research self-efficacy, statistics anxiety, and critical quantitative consciousness), academic outcomes (exam performance, course grades, and enrollment in advanced research methods courses), and persistence in research pathways (research laboratory participation, graduate school intentions, and interest in research-intensive careers). The study also seeks to develop an empirically informed QuantCrit instructional protocol that can be adapted by instructors across diverse higher education contexts.

The study will employ a three-arm quasi-experimental design conducted over two academic years across six sections of an introductory Research Methods and Statistics course (N ≈ 120). Students will receive either (a) standard instruction, (b) a QuantCrit-light condition incorporating asset-based examples and instructional materials, or (c) a fully QuantCrit-informed pedagogical approach that integrates critical reflection throughout existing lessons while preserving the core statistical curriculum and learning objectives. Students will complete pretest, posttest, and one-year follow-up surveys assessing research self-efficacy, statistics anxiety, critical quantitative consciousness, and research career interest. Academic performance will be evaluated using common examination items, course grades, and registrar data documenting enrollment in advanced research courses. Multilevel modeling will estimate intervention effects while accounting for students nested within course sections. Focus groups, classroom observations, and semi-structured interviews with students and instructors will provide complementary qualitative evidence regarding implementation fidelity, active instructional components, and participants' experiences.

Guided by QuantCrit, Freire's (2021) theory of critical consciousness, and Yosso's (2005) Community Cultural Wealth framework, this study hypothesizes that QuantCrit-informed pedagogy will strengthen students' critical understanding of quantitative research, increase research self-efficacy, reduce statistics anxiety, and promote greater engagement in undergraduate research and research-related career pathways. By moving beyond traditional approaches to research methods instruction, the intervention seeks to cultivate students' ability to critically evaluate quantitative evidence while fostering a stronger sense of belonging and agency within quantitative research spaces.

This project represents, to our knowledge, the first empirical examination of QuantCrit-informed pedagogy within undergraduate research methods education. Findings have the potential to advance QuantCrit theory, inform psychology and STEM education, strengthen the undergraduate research pipeline, and provide educators with an evidence-based instructional model for integrating critical quantitative literacy into existing research methods curricula. Ultimately, the project seeks to broaden participation in quantitative research and contribute to the preparation of a more diverse generation of researchers equipped to produce equitable and socially responsible research.

Criticality Statement

My research is generally situated within critical theory, which involves questioning and critiquing dominant practices, narratives, and perspectives that are often perceived as normative yet can perpetuate harm for marginalized communities. This work begins with my own process of learning, unlearning, and relearning assumptions and beliefs. Through this process, I seek to identify and expose systems, practices, and discourses that contribute to injustice, share knowledge that challenges these norms, and explore ways to confront harmful systems. Ultimately, my goal is to contribute to efforts that empower individuals and communities who are disproportionately affected by these forms of harm and marginalization.

D2. Black Identity Development and Academic Thriving Among Racially Minoritized Black Students in Higher Education: A Mixed Methods Proposal

2026-07-23 | 2 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Tai Rushing, M.A., University of San Francisco; Samuel Merritt University
Description

This presentation shares a research proposal examining Black identity formation as a key mediating factor in academic thriving among racially minoritized Black students in higher education. Drawing on Cross's Nigrescence Theory, the Multidimensional Model of Racial Identity, and Sense of Belonging Theory, the proposed study tests whether engagement with Black-affirming institutional spaces such as Living-Learning Communities and Cultural Centers correlates with Black identity formation, and whether that identity formation mediates academic outcomes including GPA, belonging, and persistence. The study proposes a mixed-methods design with a QuantCrit-grounded quantitative strand using mediation analysis and HLM, paired with a qualitative strand capturing identity narratives. This is a proposal in development, not yet a completed study, and the presenter welcomes discussion and critical feedback from the QuantCrit community.

Criticality Statement

D3. Critical quantitative methods: what is to be done?

2026-07-23 | 3 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Benjamin Brumley, Ph.D., West Chester University
Description

TBD

Criticality Statement

E1. Holding the Assessment Accountable: A QuantCrit Approach to Latent Profile Analysis of Science Assessment Experience

2026-07-24 | 1 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Cari Herrmann Abell, BSCS Science Learning
Description

Background

Science assessments increasingly aim to engage students in tasks that are grounded in real-world problems that connect to their lives and communities, yet students' experiences of these assessments remain underexplored. Assessments have historically privileged dominant forms of knowing and doing (Randall, 2021), with construct definitions that tend to keep less mainstream epistemologies invisible. When inequities in student experience emerge, conventional quantitative approaches risk locating the problem within students and their demographic characteristics rather than within the assessments themselves. QuantCrit principles (Castillo & Strunk, 2024) offer a framework for quantitative research that inverts this framing, keeping the assessment rather than the student as the primary object of inquiry.

Purpose

This study asks: How can we measure student science assessment experience in ways that keep the assessment rather than students' demographic characteristics as the primary object of inquiry? We present findings from a Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) of the Student Assessment Experience Survey (SAES), an instrument comprised of 13 Likert-scale items and two open-response items, designed to capture how students experience science assessment across five dimensions: Comprehension and Accessibility, Preparedness, Interest, Local and Global Relevance, and Personal Connection and Developing Agency.

Methods

Participants included 1,362 middle and high school students from schools across the United States who completed the SAES immediately following a science assessment task as part of two research projects. Guided by QuantCrit principles, our analytic approach deliberately inverts conventional quantitative framing: rather than treating demographic characteristics as predictors of student experience, we first identified distinct profiles of assessment experience and only then examined whether demographic patterns emerged within those profiles. We conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on a randomly split half-sample and confirmed the five-factor structure using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the held-out half. We then estimated latent factor scores for each student and used LPA to identify subgroups with distinct patterns of experience across the five dimensions. Model selection was guided by BIC, entropy, the Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test, and minimum profile size.

Discussion

The LPA identified four distinct engagement profiles forming a fanning pattern. All four profiles clustered tightly on Comprehension and Accessibility and Preparedness, the structural dimensions of assessment experience, but diverged substantially on Interest, Local and Global Relevance, and Personal Connection and Agency, the dimensions most tied to students' identities and lived experiences. Critically, the profiles did not sort students by race, gender, grade level, or English language background, supporting the interpretation that variation across profiles reflects how specific assessment tasks met or did not meet students where they are, rather than fixed characteristics of particular student groups. This finding holds the assessment accountable rather than the student. Limitations include the national-scale framing of the assessment design decisions, which may not capture community-specific needs, and the ongoing need to validate the SAES across broader populations and contexts.

Implications for Practice

These results have direct implications for assessment design: structural features of tasks can be more consistently achieved through careful design, while affective and identity-linked dimensions likely require intentional, community-specific work. These findings suggest that student experience data, not just academic outcome data, should inform how assessments are revised and adapted. The QuantCrit analytic approach offers a replicable model for researchers conducting large-scale quantitative studies who wish to keep assessments rather than students as the primary focus of inquiry. We invite dialogue from participants about how QuantCrit principles can be further developed and applied in latent variable modeling and other quantitative methods contexts.

Castillo, W., & Strunk, K. K. (2024). How to QuantCrit: Applying Critical Race Theory to Quantitative Data in Education (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003429968 Randall, J. (2021). “Color-neutral” is not a thing: Redefining construct definition and representation through a justice-oriented critical antiracist lens. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 40(4), 82-90.

Criticality Statement

Our research program is situated within critical frameworks that center equity, justice, and asset-based perspectives in science education assessment. Across our work, we challenge traditional assessment paradigms that locate deficits within students by interpreting student responses as evidence of developing reasoning rather than the absence of knowledge, and by positioning students as co-designers and knowledge producers rather than passive subjects of measurement. We draw on QuantCrit principles (Castillo & Strunk, 2024) to ensure that large-scale quantitative analyses keep assessment design rather than student demographics as the primary object of inquiry. More broadly, our work is oriented toward building a validity argument for phenomenon-based science assessment that takes seriously the consequences of testing for students whose identities and epistemologies have historically been excluded from what counts as scientific knowledge.

E2. Advancing QuantCrit Through Construct Design, Comparison Rules, and Bounded Use

2026-07-24 | 2 PM EDT
Presenter(s): Catherina Villafuerte, University of Connecticut
Description

Quantitative inquiry in education is often presented as neutral and objective, yet constructs, categories, reference groups, and modeling decisions are historically and politically produced choices that shape how inequity is rendered visible, explained, and acted upon (Covarrubias & Vélez, 2013; García et al., 2018; Gillborn et al., 2018; López et al., 2018). Despite these stakes, the field lacks an integrated, justice-oriented framework to guide these decisions. QuantCrit extends CRT into quantitative practice by arguing that numbers and racialized categories are socially constructed and that quantitative work carries an affirmative obligation to advance justice. The framework draws carefully from decolonial and Indigenous traditions to inform attention to authority, reciprocity, relational accountability, language, refusal, and consequences of use (Brayboy, 2005; Carroll et al., 2020; LaFrance & Crazy Bull, 2012; Mignolo, 2009, 2011; Smith, 2021). Validity scholarship provides the language for evaluating score interpretation, group comparison, fairness, and consequences of use (Kane, 2010, 2013; Messick, 1995; Putnick & Bornstein, 2016; Solano-Flores & Nelson-Barber, 2001).

Purpose of the Study

This paper addresses that gap, specifying standards for how constructs should be defined, what counts as evidence of fairness, and when the refusal of specific uses is warranted. Because the field currently lacks explicit operational standards for these analytic decisions, this paper aims to provide a usable framework that disciplines how quantitative tools are designed and deployed in equity-focused work.

Research Questions

1. How can critical traditions including QuantCrit, decoloniality, and Indigenous thought, conceptualize the relationship between quantification, power, and justice?

2. What principles can be drawn from these critical traditions to guide the design of constructs, categories, and comparisons?

3. What forms of refusal, redesign, and consequence governance are required when justice standards are not met?

Methods

This paper is a conceptual, theory building study that employs a critical constructive synthesis. The literature reviewed for this paper includes scholarship in QuantCrit, decolonial and Indigenous traditions, socio-ecological work on educational contexts, and validity scholarship addressing interpretation, comparison, and use. Together, these bodies of scholarship provide the conceptual basis for examining how quantitative inquiry defines constructs, authorizes comparisons, and governs the institutional use of evidence. Targeted readings are selected through backward citation tracing from key decolonial, Indigenous, QuantCrit, and validity texts, as well as through prior scoping work. Each text is coded for its assumptions about constructs, categories, evidence, comparison, and consequences, as well as for its treatment of coloniality, racism, and institutional responsibility. Comparative analysis proceeds through iterative reading, analytic memoing, and matrix-based synthesis. The matrix is used iteratively to refine the emerging commitments and decision rules by documenting how they are supported, challenged, or left underdeveloped across the corpus.

Discussion

The resulting synthesis is articulated as explicit commitments, standards, and decision rules. These include guidance for construct mapping, category justification, cross-group comparison, interpretation, and refusal when claims or uses exceed what evidence can warrant. Significance is both conceptual and practical. A key limitation is that the synthesis is anchored in higher education and in English language scholarship.

Implications for Theory

Conceptually, this paper establishes a justice-oriented language and governance structure for treating constructs, categories, and metrics as designed artifacts. Their assumptions, reference norms, and institutional uses are evaluated as part of validity rather than treated as technical details outside the scope of interpretation. Practically, it offers concrete standards and refusal rules that researchers, institutional research offices, and assessment professionals can apply when developing survey scales, defining comparison groups, and interpreting quantitative results. Because frameworks can be adopted selectively in ways that preserve institutional legitimacy while avoiding accountability, this paper treats refusal and consequence governance as central rather than discretionary.

Criticality Statement

My theoretical anchors are Critical Race Theory, QuantCrit, and decolonial and Indigenous perspectives on knowledge. I treat validity as an argument that must cohere construct representation, comparability, and consequences, and I treat fairness as a precondition for interpretation when findings will be used to judge people, programs, or institutions. These commitments lead me to center structural conditions and community authority and to ask whether measures index modifiable institutional levers rather than private traits. Methodologically, I scrutinize category construction, examine how policies travel through data systems, and assess whether reported uses could reproduce harm or enable redesign. I remain attentive to the interpretive risks that accompany these commitments and engage reflexively with scholarship and colleagues who challenge my assumptions and refine my claims.

E3. Work Week Closing Session: A New Direction for the Conduct of Critical Quantitative Reseearch

2026-07-24 | 3 PM EDT
Presenter(s): David Sul, Ed.D., Sul & Associates International; University of San Francisco; University of the Virgin Islands
Description

The closing session of the Work Week will focus on new directions for the study and practice of Critical Quantitative methods. It will include feedback and commentary from the Work Week participants.

Criticality Statement