Differential Validity and Utility of Successive and Simultaneous Approaches to the Development of Equivalent Achievement Tests in French and English

Alberta Journal of Educational Research

Volumn 49, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 290-304

  Rogers, W Todd ^a,b   Gierl, Mark J ^a,c   Tardif, Claudette ^a   Lin, Jie ^a,b   Rinaldi, Christina ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b Ctr for Res in Appl Msrmt/Eval   (Canada)

^c Department of Educational Psychology ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0346969382     PISSN: 00024805     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Allalouf, A., Hambleton, R.K., & Sireci, S.G. (1999). Identifying the sources of differential item functioning in translated verbal items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 185-198.
2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
3. Angoff, W.H., & Cook, L.L. (1988). Equating the scores of the Prueba de Aptitud Académica and the Scholastic Aptitude Test (Report 88-2). New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.
4. Behling, O., & Law, K.S. (2000). Translating questionnaires and other research instruments: Problems and solutions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5. Bloom, B.S. (Ed.). (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: Longman.
6. Brislin, R.W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Research, 1, 185-216.
7. Brislin, R.W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W.J. Lonner & J.W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8. 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.
9. Ellis, B.B. (1989). Differential item functioning: Implications for test translations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 912-920.
10. Ercikan, K. (1998). Translation effects in international assessments. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 543-553.
11. Ercikan, K. (1999, April). Translation DIP on TIMMS. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal.
12. Fitzpatrick, A.R. (1983). The meaning of content validity. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 3-13.
13. Gierl, M.J. (2000). Construct equivalence of translated achievement tests. Canadian Journal of Education, 25, 280-296.
14. Gierl, M.J., & Khaliq, S.N. (2001). Identifying sources of differential item and bundle functioning on translated achievement tests: A confirmatory analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 164-187.
15. Gierl, M.J., Rogers, W.T., & Klinger, D. (1999). Using statistical and judgment reviews to identify and interpret differential item functioning. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 45, 353-376.
16. Greenfield, P.M. (1997). You can't take it with you: Why ability assessments don't cross cultures. American Psychologist, 52, 1115-1124.
17. Hambleton, R.K. (1993). Translating achievement tests for use in cross-cultural studies. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 9, 57-68.
18. Hambleton, R.K. (1994), Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: A progress report. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10, 229-244.
19. Hambleton, R.K., & Bollwerk, J. (1991). Adapting tests for use in different cultures: Technical issues and methods. Bulletin of the International Testing Commission, 18, 3-32.
20. 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.
21. Hopkins, K.D., Stanley, J.C., & Hopkins, B.R. (1990). Educational and psychological measurement and evaluation (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
22. Hulin, C.L., Drasgow, F., & Komocar, J. (1982). Applications of item response theory to analysis of attitude scale translations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 818-825.
23. Leighton, J.P., Rogers, W.T., & Maguire, T.O. (1999). Assessment of student problem-solving on ill-defined tasks. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 45, 409-427.
24. Nelson, L. R.(2000). Item analysis for tests and surveys using LERTAP 5. Perth, Western Australia: Curtin University of Technology.
25. Principles for Fair Student Assessment Practices for Education in Canada. (1993). Edmonton, AB: Joint Advisory Committee.
26. Sireci, S.G., & Berberoglu, G. (2000). Using bilinguals to evaluate translated assessment questions. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 229-248.
27. Sireci, S.G., Fitzgerald, C., & Xing, D. (1998, April). Adapting credentialing examinations in international uses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.
28. Solano-Flores, G., Trumbull, E., & Nelson-Barber, S. (2002). Concurrent development of dual language assessments: An alternative to translating tests for linguistic minorities. International Journal of Testing, 2, 107-129.
29. Tanzer, N.K. (in press). Developing tests for use in multiple languages and cultures: A plea for simultaneous development. In R. Hambleton, P. Merenda, & C.D. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Tanzer, N.K., & Sim, C.Q.E. (1999). Adapting instruments for use in multiple languages and cultures: A review of the ITC Guidelines for Test Adaptations. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 15, 258-269.
31. Valdés, G., & Figueroa, R.A. (1994). Bilingualism and testing: A special case of bias. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
32. van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data-analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.