Construct equivalence on translated achievement tests

Canadian Journal of Education

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 280-296

  Gierl, Mark J ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0346309530     PISSN: 03802361     EISSN: 03802361     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/1585851     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Alberta Learning. (1989). Program of Studies: Social Studies. Edmonton: Alberta Learning, Curriculum Standards Branch.
2. Alberta Learning. (1996). Program of Studies: Mathematics. Edmonton: Alberta Learning, Curriculum Standards Branch.
3. Angoff, W. H., & Cook, L. L. (1988). Equating the scores of the Prueba de Aptitud Academica and the Scholastic Aptitude Test (College Board Report No. 88-2). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
4. Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 45-87.
5. Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approach to representing multifaceted personality constructs: Application to state self-esteem. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 35-67.
6. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
7. Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
8. Browne, M. W., & Cudek, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
9. Budgell, G. R., Raju, N. S., & Quartetti, D. A. (1995). Analysis of differential item functioning in translated assessment instruments. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 309-321.
10. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthen, B. (1989). Testing the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456-466.
11. Ellis, B. B. (1989). Differential item functioning: Implications for test translation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 912-921.
12. Frederiksen, N., Mislevy R. J., & Bejar, I.I. (1993). Test theory for a new generation of tests. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Gierl, M. J. (1997). Comparing the cognitive representations of test developers and students on a mathematics achievement test using Bloom's taxonomy. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 26-32.
14. Gierl, M. J., & Mulvenon, S. (1995, April). Evaluating the application of fit indices to structural equation models in educational research: A review of the literature from 1990 through 1994. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
15. Gierl, M. J., Rogers, W. T., & Klinger, D. (1999, April). Consistency between statistical procedures and content reviews for identifying translation DIE Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal, QC.
16. Hambleton, R. K. (1993). Translating achievement tests for use in cross-cultural studies. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 9, 57-68.
17. Hambleton, R. K. (1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: A progress report. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10, 229-244.
18. Hambleton, R. K., & Kanjee, A. (1995). Increasing the validity of cross-cultural assessments: Use of improved methods for test adaptations. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11, 147-157.
19. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
20. Hulin, C. L. (1987). A psychometric theory of evaluations of items and scale translations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 115-142.
21. Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36, 409-426.
22. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.
23. Lord. F M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24. McDonald, R. P., & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Non-centrality and goodness of fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 247-255.
25. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.) (pp. 13-103). Washington, DC: American Council on Education; New York: Macmillan.
26. Mislevy, R. J. (1996). Test theory reconceived. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 379-416.
27. Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430-445.
28. Nichols, P. D., Chipman, S. F., & Brennan, R. L. (1995). Cognitively diagnostic assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Nichols, P., & Sugrue, B. (1999). The lack of fidelity between cognitively complex constructs and conventional test development practice. Educational measurement: Issues and practice, 18, 18-29.
30. Sireci, S. G. (1997). Problems and issues in linking assessments across languages. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16, 12-19.
31. Snow, R. E., & Lohman, D. F. (1989). Implications of cognitive psychology for educational measurement. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.), (pp. 263-331). Washington, DC: American Council on Education; New York: Macmillan.
32. van de Vijver, F. J. R. (1994). Item bias: Where psychology and methodology meet. In A. Bouvy F. J. R. van de Vijver, P. Boski, & P. Schmitz (Eds.), Journeys into cross-cultural psychology (pp. 111-126). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
33. van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Translating tests: Some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1, 89-99.
34. van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data-analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
35. van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1997). Towards an integrated analysis of bias in cross-cultural assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 13, 21-29.