ASWB made two big promises about their social work exams. They haven’t kept either one

In 2022, ASWB released exam data that they had long denied even possessing. That data showed significant disparities in exam performance on the basis of race and ethnicity, leading to calls that their exams should be suspended or abolished. Some states have done so, at least at some licensure levels.

Since those 2022 revelations, ASWB has made two significant promises about how they would move forward with greater transparency around their exams: 1, They would continue to provide data broken down by demographic factors like race, and 2, They would release all of their psychometric validation studies.

So far, they haven’t fulfilled either promise.

Continuing to provide data by race

Less than a month after the release of their initial report, ASWB knew that backlash was building. They made several efforts to both deflect responsibility for the disparities and to commit to better exam development processes in the future. 

One specific step that they seemed to commit to was the annual release of exam data broken down by race. In full context, here’s what they said (it’s still up on their web site as of the date of this article’s publication; emphasis mine):

On August 5, 2022, ASWB released pass rate data broken down by self-reported demographic group. This was a groundbreaking effort on behalf of the association. ASWB is committed to continuing to provide data annually and engaging members of the profession to provide input as it develops exams for the future of social work.

The most recent pass rate data on the ASWB site is from 2023, and this data is not broken down by race or other demographic factors.

ASWB might argue that the wording of their statement gives them an out. They didn’t say precisely what data they were committing to provide annually. But since it’s in the context of a discussion of data broken down by demographic group, arguing that other, different data meets this commitment would be disingenuous.

As best as I can tell, they haven’t released any data broken down by race or other demographic factors since the 2022 report.

Releasing psychometric validation studies

In testimony before a Maryland legislative committee on February 4 of this year, ASWB CEO Stacey Hardy-Chandler was directly asked whether ASWB would release all of the validation studies that would demonstrate the ASWB exams are valid measures. 

Hardy-Chandler’s immediate answer was “100 percent.” 

Psychometric validation studies are commonplace in the testing industry, particularly for high-stakes exams. Researchers and advocates have been frustrated by ASWB’s selective release of a handful of psychometric data points rather than the actual validation studies. (Even those cherry-picked points don’t make ASWB’s exams look great.) 

Again, ASWB does not appear to have followed through. Here’s a transcript of the February exchange, or you can also just watch the video:

State Senator Clarence K. Lam: Would you be willing to release all the psychometric validation studies and also the financial reports that are related to this exam for an independent review?

Stacey Hardy-Chandler, ASWB CEO: 100 percent. ASWB is a nonprofit. I encourage you to review our [IRS form] 990. All of that information is publicly available. I know of no programs that operate on air. We are excellent stewards of candidate funds, and a great deal of those funds go right back into the development of the examination. And while I have your attention, I understand your skepticism. That’s fine to be skeptical, but the psychometrics are also available. In fact, we’ve done webinars, we’ve published additional data. 

In summary, Senator Lam asked Hardy-Chandler to release all psychometric validation studies and financial reports. Hardy-Chandler agreed “100 percent” to do so. She first discussed the financial reports, which are indeed public, but she returned to the validation-studies part of the question as well. She mentioned “webinars and additional data” that the organization has published, which are decidedly not “all the psychometric validation studies” that she had just been asked about.

Since that hearing, it does not appear that ASWB has published any of its psychometric validation studies. They certainly haven’t made all of their psychometric validation studies public, as was directly asked of Hardy-Chandler, and as she appeared to promise. Meanwhile, ASWB has moved forward with exam changes that rely on such validation. 

ASWB’s clumsy change in exam structure earlier this year, about which they actively misinformed examinees, and its progress on its 2026 exam blueprint both depend on psychometric validation. ASWB has publicly said that these changes were psychometrically validated. But they have released no supporting studies.

They are, as seems to be their pattern, just asking examinees and regulators to take their word for it.