Critiquing the rationales for using comparative judgement: a call for clarity

Comparative judgment is gaining popularity as an assessment tool, including for high-stakes testing purposes, despite relatively little research on the use of technique. Advocates claim two main rationales its use: that comparative valid because humans are better at than absolute judgment, and it distils aggregate view expert judges. We explore these contentions. argue psychological underpinnings used to justify method superficially treated in literature. conceptualise critique notion ‘intrinsically valid’ due conclude presented by literature incomplete inconsistent. recommend future work should clarify position regarding if necessary present a more compelling case; example, integrating with evidence from other fields.