Justice and Fairness for University and College Entrance Examination Scale (JFUCEE): Scale Development, Reliability and Validity

The present study aims to develop the validated scale to assess Justice and Fairness for University Entrance Examinations. / There were 392 respondents from four universities of varying selectivity. An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted, with the factor extraction method being the maximum likelihood method and the rotation method being Promax rotation. The number of factors was determined to be 3 with reference to statistical criteria such as parallel analysis, MAP criteria, and information criterion such as BIC and RMSEA. / Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients were calculated to examine internal consistency. The overall scale was α=.803, distributive justice was α=.808, procedural justice 1 (retrospectivity) was α=.733, and procedural justice 2 (consistency/accuracy) was α=.780. / Comprehensive Fairness and Justice of University and College Entrance Examination Scale, the School System Justification Scale, and the Trust in the University and College Admission System Scale, the alpha coefficients were calculated to be .918, .733, and .745, respectively. These results indicate that the internal consistency of the results is sufficient. The correlation matrix with them was checked, and it was confirmed that the criterion-related validity was sufficiently ensured. / The results of the Justice and Fairness for University Admission Examinations Scale (JFUCEE) suggest, first, that justice and fairness in university admission is multidimensional, with distributive justice being of greatest interest in university admission. Unlike fairness research in organizations, procedural justice could not be extracted as a single factor, but was separated into two factors, procedural justice 1 (retrospectivity) and procedural justice 2 (consistency/accuracy), which, together with distributive justice, formed a three-factor structure. The correlations between procedural justice factors were also low, at .197 and .242, respectively, suggesting that procedures such as feedback and objections and the consistency and accuracy of information and standards are regarded as two separate things in the selection process for university admissions. / Second, the distributional justice was higher for the non-general admission examination than for the general admission examination, indicating that the view of fairness in university entrance examinations is changing. / Third, with regard to procedural fairness 1 (retrospectivity), if a university focuses on it in a particular selection method, it can certainly be a means to improve the view of fairness of university entrance examinations. / Fourth, with regard to procedural fairness2 (consistency/accuracy), there is a possibility to improve the fairness of university entrance selection depending on the efforts of each university. / JFUCEE is expected to provide the empirical basis to push forward study about justice issues in University Entrance Examinations.