Curriculum, translation, and differential functioning of measurement and geometry items

Canadian Journal of Education

Volumn 28, Issue 1-2, 2005, Pages 128-146

  Emenogu, Barnabas C ^a   Childs, Ruth A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b OISE/UT   (Canada)

Author keywords

Curriculum; Differential item functioning; Large scale assessment; Mathematics assessment; Translation

Indexed keywords

EID: 27844477004     PISSN: 03802361     EISSN: 03802361     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/1602157     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Allalouf, A. (2000, April). Retaining translated verbal reasoning items by revising DIF items. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
2. Allalouf, A., Hambleton, R., & Sireci, S. (1999). Identifying the causes of DIF on verbal items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 185-198.
3. Boiteau, N., Bertrand, R., & St-Onge, C. (2002, May). Evolution of French-English DIF items in SAIP math data. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education, Toronto.
4. Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
5. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1997). School Achievement Indicators Program (SAIP) 1997 Mathematics II Assessment. Toronto: Author.
6. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (2001). Report on Mathematics Assessment III. School Achievement Indicators Program (SAIP) 2001. Toronto: Author.
7. Dorans, N. J., & Holland, P. W. (1993). DIF detection and description: Mantel-Haenszel and standardization. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 35-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Ercikan, K., Gierl, M. J., McCreith, T., Puhan, G., & Koh, K. (2002, May). Comparability of English and French versions of SAIP for reading, mathematics, and science items. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education, Toronto.
9. Fournier, G. (2000). The pan-Canadian assessments: Setting the records straight. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 547-550.
10. 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.
11. Gierl, M. J., Rogers, W. T., & Klinger, D. (1999, April). Using statistical and judgmental reviews to identify and interpret translation DIF. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal, QC.
12. Harnish, D., & Linn, R. L. (1981). Analysis of item response patterns: Questionable test data and dissimilar curriculum practices. Journal of Educational Measurement, 18, 133-146.
13. Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item functioning and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129-145). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Koh, K., & Ercikan, K. (2002, May). Construct comparability in French and English versions of SAIP. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education, Toronto.
16. Lawson, A., Bordignon, C., & Nagy, P. (2002). Matching the Grade 8 TIMSS item pool to the Ontario curriculum. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 28, 87-102.
17. Leinhardt, G., & Seewald, A. M. (1981). Overlap: What's tested, what's taught? Journal of Educational Measurement, 18, 85-95.
18. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Mehrens, W. A., & Phillips, S. E. (1986). Detecting impacts of curricular differences in achievement test data. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23, 185-196.
20. Miller, M. D., & Linn, R. L. (1988). Invariance of item characteristic functions with variations in instructional coverage. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25, 205-219.
21. Muthén, B. O., Kao, C., & Burstein, L. (1991). Instructionally sensitive psychometrics: Applications of a new IRT-based detection technique to mathematics achievement test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 1-22.
22. Ontario Ministry of Education. (1985a). Curriculum guideline, mathematics intermediate and senior divisions: Part two, Grades 7 and 8, Grades 9 and 10, general level, Grades 11 and 12, general level. Toronto, ON: Author.
23. e Année, Niveau Général. Toronto: Author.
24. e Année - Mathématiques. Toronto: Author.
25. Ontario Ministry of Education. (1997b). The Ontario curriculum, Grades 1-8 - Mathematics. Toronto: Author.
26. e Année - Mathématiques. Toronto: Author.
27. Ontario Ministry of Ed ucation. (1999b). The Ontario curriculum, Grades 9 and 10 - Mathematics. Toronto: Author.
28. e Année - Mathématiques. Toronto: Author.
29. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2000b). The Ontario curriculum, Grades 11 and 12, Mathematics. Toronto: Author.
30. Price, L. R., & Oshima, T. C. (1998, April). Differential item functioning and language translation: A cross-national study with a test developed for certification. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
31. Shepard, L., Camilli, G., & Averill, A. (1981) Comparison of procedures for detecting test-item bias with both internal and external ability criteria. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(4), 317-375.
32. Sireci, S. G., & Swaminathan, H. (1996, October). Evaluating translation equivalence: So what's the big dif? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association, Ellenville, NY.
33. Stocking, M. L., & Lord, F. M. (1983). Developing a common metric in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 201-210.
34. Swanson, D. B., Clauser, B. E., Case, S. M., Nungester, R. J., & Featherman, C. (2002). Analysis of differential item functioning (DIF) using hierarchical logistic regression models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 27(1), 53-66.
35. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1993). Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 67-113). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. van de Vijver, F., & Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Translating tests: Some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1(2), 89-99.
37. Waller, N. G. (1998). LINKDIF: Linking item parameters and calculating IRT measures of differential fuctioning of items and test [Computer Program Exchange]. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 392.
38. Zimowski, M. F., Muraki, E., Mislevy, R. J., & Bock, R. D. (1996). BILOG-MG: Multigroup IRT analysis and test maintenance for binary items. Chicago: Scientific Software.
39. Zwick, R., Thayer, D. T., & Lewis, C. (2000). Using loss functions for DIF detection: An empirical Bayes approach. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 25(2), 225-247.