Year: 2026
Type: article
Abstract: Assessment in the arts increasingly relies on formalized criteria and rubrics to ensure transparency and consistency. However, in judgment-based disciplines, this reliance raises persistent questions about validity. This short comment examines the epistemic limits of formal assessment instruments in contexts in which evaluative judgment is central to disciplinary expertise. Drawing on assessment theory and humanities perspectives on judgment, the article argues that formalization can misrecognize expert judgment as error rather than capacity, producing validity failures that cannot be resolved through improved specification or calibration. The analysis reframes validity as an inferential problem rather than a procedural one and clarifies why judgment must be understood as an assessment instrument rather than a methodological weakness. The article contributes a conceptual account of assessment formalism that helps explain recurring tensions in arts evaluation and opens space for more defensible approaches to judgment-based assessment.
Source: Journal of Arts and Humanities
DOI: 10.18533/zyny3m35
Author: Seow, Eugene
Institution: LASALLE College of the Arts
Language: English
Subfield: Education
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: diamond
OpenAlex ID: W7219856420