An Examination of Item Context Effects, DIF, and Gender DIF

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 73-90

  Ryan, Katherine E ^b   Chiu, Shuwan ^a  

^a Illinois State Board of Education   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035584836     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/S15324818AME1401_06     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Bridgman, B., & Lewis, C. (1996). Gender differences in college mathematics grades and SAT-M scores: A reanalysis of Wainer and Steinberg. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 257-270.
2. Burton, N. (1996). How have the changes in the SAT affected women's mathematics performance? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15(4), 5-9.
3. Cole, N. S., & Willingham, W. W. (1997). Gender and fair assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
4. Davenport, E. C., Davison, L., Kuang, H., Ding, S., Kim, S., & Kwak, N. (1998). High school mathematics course-taking by gender and ethnicity. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 497-514.
5. Doolittle, A. E., & Cleary, T. A. (1987). Gender-based differential item performance in mathematics achievement items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 157-166.
6. Douglas, J., Roussos, L., & Stout, W. (1996). Item bundling DIF hypothesis testing: Identifying suspect bundles and assessing their DIF. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 465-484.
7. Feingold, A. (1992a). The greater male variability controversy: Science versus politics. Review of Educational Research, 62(1), 89-90.
8. Feingold, A. (1992b). Sex differences in variability in intellectual abilities: A new look at an old controversy. Review of Educational Research, 62(1), 61-84.
9. Hambleton, R. K., & Traub, R. E. (1974). The effects of item order on test performance and stress. Journal of Experimental Education, 43, 40-46.
10. Harnisch, D. L., Tatsuoka, K. K., & Wilkins, J. (1995, November). Reporting math proficiencies based on the new SAT-M. Paper presented at the American Evaluation Meeting, Vancouver, Canada.
11. Harris, A. M., & Carlton, S. T. (1993). Patterns of gender differences on mathematics items on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Applied Measurement in Education, 6, 137-152.
12. Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1986). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure (Research Rep. No. 86-31). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
13. Holland, P. (1999, April). Why are so many tests being DIFed when DIF don't make no diff? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
14. Lane, S., Wang, N., & Magone, M. (1996). Gender-related differential item functioning on a middle-school mathematics performance assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15(4), 21-27.
15. Leary, L. F., & Dorans, N. J. (1985). Implications for altering the context in which test items appear: A historical perspective on an immediate concern. Review of Educational Research, 55, 387-413.
16. Linn, M. (1992, October). Gender differences in educational achievement. Paper presented at the 52nd ETS Invitation Conference, Princeton, New Jersey.
17. Nandakumar, R. (1991). Traditional versus essential unidimensionality. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 99-118.
18. Nandakumar, R. (1993). Simultaneous DIF amplification and cancellation: Shealy-Stout's test for DIF. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 293-312.
19. O'Neill, K. A., & McPeek, W. M. (1993). Item and test characteristics that are associated with differential item functioning. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 255-276). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
20. Plake, B. S., Ansorge, C. J., Parker, C. S., & Lowry, S. R. (1982). Effects of item arrangement, knowledge of arrangement, test anxiety, and sex on test performance. Journal of Educational Measurement, 19, 49-58.
21. Plake, B. S., Patience, W. M., & Whitney, D. R. (1988). Differential item performance in mathematics achievement test items: Effect of item arrangement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 885-894.
22. Ryan, K. E., & Fan, M. (1993, July). Validation studies for UIUC German, Spanish, and French Placement Examinations: Form 2, Measurement and Evaluation Division. Urbana: Office of Instructional Resources, University of Illinois.
23. Ryan, K. E., & Fan, M. (1996). Examining gender DIF on a multiple-choice test of mathematics: A confirmatory approach. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15(4), 21-27.
24. Scheuneman, J. A., & Grima, A. (1997). Characteristics of quantitative word items associated with differential performance for female and Black examinees. Applied Measurement in Education, 10, 299-320.
25. Shealy, R., & Stout, W. (1993). An item response theory model for test bias and differential test functioning. In P. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 197-240). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
26. Stout, W. (1987). A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 52, 589-617.
27. Stout, W., & Roussos, L. (1995). SIBTEST user manual. Urbana: University of Illinois.
28. Tatsuoka, K. K. (1983). Rule-space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 34-38.
29. Tatsuoka, K. K. (1990). Toward an integration of item response theory and cognitive analysis. In N. Fredriksen, R. Glaser, A. Lesgold, & M. C. Shafto (Eds.), Diagnostic monitoring of skill and knowledge acquisition (pp. 453-497). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
30. Tatsuoka, K. K. (1993). Item construction and psychometric models appropriate for constructed response models. In R. Bennett & W. Ward (Eds.), Construction versus choice in cognitive measurement (pp.107-133). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
31. Wainer, H., & Steinberg, L. S. (1992). Sex differences in performance on the mathematics section of the Scholastic Aptitude Test: A bidirectional validity study. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 323-326.
32. Wise, L. L., Chia, W. J., & Park, R. K. (1989, March). Item position effects for test of work knowledge and arithmetic reasoning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
33. Yen, W. M. (1980). The extent, causes, and importance of context effects on item parameters for two latent trait models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 17, 297-311.
34. Zwick, R. (1991). Effects of item order and context on estimation of NEP. Reading proficiency. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(3), 10-16.