Assessing fairness in AI-assisted writing scoring: Developing fairness measures to detect predictive bias in automated essay scoring

Automated essay scoring (AES) is increasingly utilized in educational settings, yet concerns about its fairness persist. This study reviews current fairness measures in AES and summarizes their respective strengths and weaknesses. Drawing on principles from educational and psychological testing, we introduce two measures for detecting potential predictive bias: conditional disparity ratio and conditional disparity difference. Our method emphasizes two key principles: first, that bias should be assessed among students with comparable proficiency levels, and second, that evaluations should be conducted on a test set independent of the AES training set. We demonstrated this approach using writing samples from the Facial Action Coding System task within the PERSUADE 2.0 corpus to assess potential predictive bias related to sex and race. Four AES models were evaluated for predictive bias: ordinal logistic regression using TF–IDF features, fine-tuned BERT, and ChatGPT in both zero-shot and few-shot settings. The findings indicated that, without accounting for proficiency, subgroup differences remained ambiguous, making it difficult to detect potential predictive bias. In contrast, conditioning on proficiency revealed clearer and more interpretable patterns of bias. The discussion addresses key factors and the extension of the bias detection framework and outlines future directions for bias mitigation. • Introduces two fairness measures for automated writing scoring. • Distinguishes predictive bias from real proficiency differences. • Uses multiple scoring models, from machine learning to large language models. • Shows fairness varies by demographic group and proficiency level. • Offers practical guidance for bias detection in AI writing assessment.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Assessing Writing
Published
2026-05-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2026.101066
Primary Topic
Authorship Attribution and Profiling
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Assessing fairness in AI-assisted writing scoring: Developing fairness measures to detect predictive bias in automated essay scoring

Amery D. Wu, Chiyu Zhang, Guanyu Chen
Assessing Writing
Authorship Attribution and Profiling
article

Assessing fairness in AI-assisted writing scoring: Developing fairness measures to detect predictive bias in automated essay scoring

Amery D. Wu, Chiyu Zhang, Guanyu Chen
article en

Abstract

Automated essay scoring (AES) is increasingly utilized in educational settings, yet concerns about its fairness persist. This study reviews current fairness measures in AES and summarizes their respective strengths and weaknesses. Drawing on principles from educational and psychological testing, we introduce two measures for detecting potential predictive bias: conditional disparity ratio and conditional disparity difference. Our method emphasizes two key principles: first, that bias should be assessed among students with comparable proficiency levels, and second, that evaluations should be conducted on a test set independent of the AES training set. We demonstrated this approach using writing samples from the Facial Action Coding System task within the PERSUADE 2.0 corpus to assess potential predictive bias related to sex and race. Four AES models were evaluated for predictive bias: ordinal logistic regression using TF–IDF features, fine-tuned BERT, and ChatGPT in both zero-shot and few-shot settings. The findings indicated that, without accounting for proficiency, subgroup differences remained ambiguous, making it difficult to detect potential predictive bias. In contrast, conditioning on proficiency revealed clearer and more interpretable patterns of bias. The discussion addresses key factors and the extension of the bias detection framework and outlines future directions for bias mitigation. • Introduces two fairness measures for automated writing scoring. • Distinguishes predictive bias from real proficiency differences. • Uses multiple scoring models, from machine learning to large language models. • Shows fairness varies by demographic group and proficiency level. • Offers practical guidance for bias detection in AI writing assessment.

Assessing WritingVol. 69
University of British Columbia (CA)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Authorship Attribution and Profiling
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.