Moving Beyond Mechanical Objectivity: Addressing the Challenges and Exploring Novel Solutions in Iranian University Admissions

Authors
Mahdi Karvandi Renani 1
Keyvan Salehi 2
Ebrahim Khodaie 3
1 The Student of Ph.D. in Measurement and Assessment, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
3 Professor, Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
10.61838/KMAN.IRPHE.32.2.9
Abstract
Extensive criticisms have been raised against Iran’s university admission system, prompting the addition of final examinations alongside the national entrance exam. Despite these changes, standardized testing remains central, driven by a commitment to objectivity and ethical impartiality. In this paper, we argue that the traditional conception of objectivity—specifically mechanical objectivity or the value-free ideal—assumes that test scores alone are sufficient for admission, creating serious challenges for the validity of entrance exams. Classical test theory, rooted in operationalism and aligned with mechanical objectivity, emphasizes reliability over validity, failing to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate assessments. Consequently, mechanical objectivity alone cannot ensure justice or epistemic integrity. Drawing on Daston and Galison’s work, we highlight the need for additional epistemic virtues such as truth-to-nature and trained judgment. Latent variable models, which aim to uncover the underlying essence of phenomena, are presented as alternatives to classical test theory. Furthermore, trained judgment leverages expert evaluation to offer a more holistic view of student abilities. Recent perspectives also frame objectivity as context-sensitive and goal-oriented. Therefore, redefining objectivity in university admissions requires identifying clear social and academic goals and designing evaluations accordingly. Ultimately, we propose a hybrid framework that integrates latent variable-based assessments with expert-driven processes, aiming to create a fairer, multidimensional, and more just admission model for Iran’s universities.
Keywords
Mechanical Objectivity
Value-Free Ideal
National Entrance Examination
Epistemic Virtues
Validity
Subjects
Amini Bagh, A., & Salimi, J. (2025). A qualitative analysis of faculty members' perceptions of the creative university: A pathway toward educational innovation. Research and Planning in Higher Education Quarterly, 31(2), 45-66. https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.Irphe.31.2.3
Au, W. (2013). Hiding behind High-Stakes Testing: Meritocracy, Objectivity and Inequality in U.S. Education. The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 12, 7-20. https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/IEJ/article/view/7453
Baker, F. B., & Kim, S. H. (2018). The Basics of Item Response Theory Using R. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-319-54205-8.pdf
Borgstede, M., & Eggert, F. (2023). Squaring the circle: From latent variables to theory-based measurement. Theory & Psychology, 33(1), 118-137. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543221127985
Borsboom, D. (2005). Measuring the mind : conceptual issues in contemporary psychometrics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490026
Borsboom, D. (2008). Psychometric perspectives on diagnostic systems. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64(9), 1089-1108. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20503
Borsboom, D., & Cramer, A. O. (2013). Network analysis: an integrative approach to the structure of psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 91-121. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185608
Bridgman, P. W. (1927). The logic of modern physics. Macmillan. https://marcellocosta.au/wp/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Bridgmans-The-Logic-of-Modern-Physics.pdf
Bulut, O. (2016). Applying Item Response Theory Models to Entrance Examination for Graduate Studies: Practical Issues and Insights. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 6(2), 0-0. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.17523
Cartwright, N., Hardie, J., Montuschi, E., Soleiman, M., & Thresher, A. C. (2022). The Tangle of Science: Reliability Beyond Method, Rigour, and Objectivity. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198866343.001.0001
Chang, H. (2022). Realism for Realistic People: A New Pragmatist Philosophy of Science. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635738
Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validity. In Educational Measurement. American Council on Education. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1457760
Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. Zone Books.
Douglas, H. (2000). Inductive Risk and Values in Science. Philosophy of Science, 67(4), 559-579. https://doi.org/10.1086/392855
Douglas, H. (2009). Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wrc78
Ebrahimi, Y., Chavoushi, Z., & Roshan, A. (2025). An investigation of the socio-economic status of students in public universities of Tehran. Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 31(2), 67-82. https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.Irphe.31.2.4
Elliott, K. C. (2022). Values in Science. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009052597
Fitrah, M., Ilyas, Akbarini, N., Istiyono, E., & Widihastuti, W. (2023). Equating Principles in Assessment: A Literature Review in the Context of Education and Assessment. IJECA (International Journal of Education and Curriculum Application), 6, 199-209. https://doi.org/10.31764/ijeca.v6i3.19381
Gillispie, C. C. (1960). The Edge of Objectivity: An Essay in the History of Scientific Ideas. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc779t6
Griffin, P. (2018). Assessment for teaching. Cambridge University Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=4i42DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Griffin,+P.+(2018).+Assessment+for+teaching.+United+Kingdom,+Cambridge+University+Press.+%09&ots=XU3PeIS7Vu&sig=pl79J2K5xjEQ5rupCnLyPtXBS_o
Hacking, I. (2015). Let's Not Talk About Objectivity. In Objectivity in Science: New Perspectives From Science and Technology Studies (pp. 19-33). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14349-1_2
Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Sage Publications, Inc. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=gW05DQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Hambleton,+R.+K.,+et+al.+(1991).+Fundamentals+of+item+response+theory,+Sage+Publications,+Inc.+%09&ots=h_K_KC0UAP&sig=25WhX6lrqnY9RkS8MRFI3rQ68zw
Heinen, T. (1996). Latent class and discrete latent trait models: similarities and differences. Sage Publications. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-09133-000
Hosseini, N., & Salimi, G. (2025). Identification and analysis of the competencies and responsibilities of PhD students at Shiraz University regarding their supervisor's research guidance. Research and Planning in Higher Education Quarterly, 31(2), 21-44. https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.Irphe.31.2.2
John, S. (2021). Objectivity in Science. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009063647
Joreskog, K. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 36(2), 109-133. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291393
Kane, M. T. (2006). Validation. In R. L. Brennan & E. Fourth (Eds.), Educational Measurement (pp. 17-64). https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2372989
Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the Interpretations and Uses of Test Scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000
Kane, M. T. (2016). Validity as the evaluation of the claims based on test scores. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23(2), 309-311. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2016.1156645
Karvandi Renani, M., Khodaie, E., Salehi, K., & Moghaddam Zadeh, A. (2024). Assessment Limitations of University Entrance Exam in Intra-individual Abilities. Iranian Higher Education, 16(1), 110-130. http://ihej.ir/article-1-2049-fa.html
Kellert, S. H., Longino, H., & Waters, C. K. (2006). Introduction: The Pluralist Stance. In Scientific Pluralism (pp. vii-xxix). University of Minnesota Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=B5UHqo7V1AsC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Kellert,+S.+H.,+et+al.+(2006).+Introduction:+The+Pluralist+Stance.+Scientific+Pluralism,+University+of+Minnesota+Press:+vii-xxix.+%09&ots=9xyp5LrayM&sig=_r55GYb0MvhVwZjZ1AqQrgdKS8A
Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2014). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices. Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0317-7
Koskinen, I. (2021). Objectivity in contexts: withholding epistemic judgement as a strategy for mitigating collective bias. Synthese, 199(1), 211-225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02645-9
Kuhn, T. S. (1981). Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change (pp. 320-339). Duke University Press. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203718087-6/objectivity-value-judgment-theory-choice-thomas-kuhn
Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Henry, N. W. (1968). Latent Structure Analysis. Houghton Mifflin.
Lloyd, E. A. (1995). Objectivity and the double standard for feminist epistemologies. Synthese, 104(3), 351-381. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064505
Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry (Vol. 25). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691209753
Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of Item Response Theory To Practical Testing Problems. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203056615
Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Adison-Wesley.
Majles, I. R. o. I. P. (2021). Expert opinion on the 'Bill mandating the National Organization of Educational Testing to design university entrance exam questions solely based on official school textbooks'. Research Center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, Expert Reports, 129(29), 853-855. https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage/1786749
McMullin, E. (1982). Values in Science. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1982(4), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1982.2.192409
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn & e. rd (Eds.), Educational Measurement (pp. 13-100). American Council on Education. https://www.scirp.org/reference/ReferencesPapers?ReferenceID=590541
Michell, J. (1990). An introduction to the logic of psychological measurement. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. https://api.taylorfrancis.com/content/books/mono/download?identifierName=doi&identifierValue=10.4324/9781315807614&type=googlepdf
Michell, J. (2020). The fashionable scientific fraud: Collingwood's critique of psychometrics. History of the Human Sciences, 33(2), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695119872638
Misak, C. J. (1995). Verificationism: Its History and Prospects. Routledge. https://api.taylorfrancis.com/content/books/mono/download?identifierName=doi&identifierValue=10.4324/9780203980248&type=googlepdf
Niaz, M. (2017). Evolving Nature of Objectivity in the History of Science and its Implications for Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67726-2
Ohiri, S. C., Christopher, M., & Benedict, I. (2024). Differential Item Functioning Detection Methods: An Overview. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 5, 1555-1564. https://doi.org/10.55248/gengpi.5.0224.0505
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Basic Books. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3060577
Rasch, G. (1960). Studies in mathematical psychology: I. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Nielsen & Lydiche. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1962-07791-000
Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction: An analysis of the foundations and the structure of knowledge. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/11656-000
Spearman, C. (1904). 'General intelligence,' objectively determined and measured. The American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 201-293. https://doi.org/10.2307/1412107
Vessonen, E. (2021). Respectful operationalism. Theory & Psychology, 31(1), 84-105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354320945036
Woo, S. E., LeBreton, J. M., Keith, M. G., & Tay, L. (2023). Bias, Fairness, and Validity in Graduate-School Admissions: A Psychometric Perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(1), 3-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211055374
Zagzebski, L. T. (1996). Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry Into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174763
 

  • Receive Date 25 May 2025
  • Revise Date 29 August 2025
  • Accept Date 01 September 2025
  • Publish Date 01 July 2026