Examining sources of gender DIF in mathematics assessments using a confirmatory multidimensional model approach

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 289-304

  Mendes Barnett, Sharon ^a   Ercikan, Kadriye ^b  

^a Research and Measurement Services   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33751536050     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15324818ame1904_4     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Allalouf, A., Hambleton, R., & Sireci, S. (1999). Identifying the causes of translation DIF on verbal items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 185-198.
2. Armstrong, J. (1981). Achievement and participation of women in mathematics: Results of two national surveys. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 12, 356-372.
3. Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1982). Consequences in high school and college of sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: A longitudinal perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 598-622.
4. Berberoglu, G. (1995). Differential item functioning (DIF) analysis of computation, word problem and geometry questions across gender and SES groups. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 21, 439-456.
5. Bielinski, J., & Davison, M. (2001). A sex difference by item difficulty interaction in multiple-choice mathematics items administered to national probability samples. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 51-77.
6. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
7. Bolt, D. M. (2000). A SIBTEST approach to testing DIF hypotheses using experimentally designed test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37, 307-327.
8. Camilli, G. (1993). The case against item bias detection techniques based on internal criteria: Do item bias procedures obscure test fairness issues? In P. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 397-413). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
9. Carpenter, T., Linquist, M., Matthews, W., & Silver, E. (1983). Results of the Third NAEP Mathematics Assessment: Secondary school. Mathematics Teacher, 76, 652-659.
10. Casey, M. B., Nuttall, R., & Pezaris, E.(2001). Spatial-mechanical reasoning skills versus mathematics self-confidence as mediators of gender differences on mathematics subtests using cross-national gender-based items. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 28-57.
11. Doolittle, A. E., & Cleary, T. A. (1987). Gender-based differential item performance in mathematics achievement items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24(2), 157-166.
12. Douglas, J., Roussos, L., & Stout, W. (1996). Item-bundle DIF hypothesis testing: Identifying suspect bundles and assessing their differential functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 465-484.
13. Engelhard, G., Hansche, L., & Rutledge, K. E. (1990). Accuracy of bias review judges in identifying differential item functioning on teacher certification tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 3, 347-360.
14. Ercikan, K. (1998). Translation effects in international assessments. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 543-553.
15. Ercikan, K. (1999, April). Translation DIF in TIMSS. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal, Canada.
16. Ercikan, K., Gierl, M. J., McCreith, T., Puhan, G., & Koh, K. (2004). Comparability of bilingual versions of assessments: Sources of incomparability of English and French versions of Canada's National Achievement Tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 17, 301-321.
17. Fennema, E. (1974). Mathematics, learning and the sexes: A review. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 5, 126-139.
18. Fennema, E., & Tartre, L. (1985). The use of spatial visualization in mathematics by girls and boys. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 184-206.
19. Flexer, B. (1984). Predicting eighth grade algebra achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 352-360.
20. Gallagher, A., & De Lisi, R. (1994). Gender differences in scholastic aptitude test-mathematics problem solving among high ability students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 204-211.
21. Gierl, M., Bisanz, J., Bisanz, G., Boughton, K., & Khaliq, S. (2001). Illustrating the utility of differential bundle functioning analyses to identify and interpret group differences on achievement tests. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20, 26-36.
22. Gierl, M., & Khaliq, S. (2001). Identifying sources of differential item and bundle functioning on translated achievement tests: A confirmatory analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 164-187.
23. Hanna, G. (1986). Sex differences in a casual model of mathematics achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 361-377.
24. Harris, A., & Carlton, S. (1993). Patterns of gender differences on mathematics items on the scholastic aptitude test Applied Measurement in Education, 6, 137-151.
25. Henderson, D. L. (2001, April). Prevalence of gender DIF in mixed format high school exit examinations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
26. Hyde, J., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139-155.
27. Hyde, J., & Jaffee, C. (1998). Perspectives from social and feminist psychology. Educational Researcher, 27, 14-16.
28. Kaplan, B., & Plake, B. (1982). Sex differences in mathematics: Differences in basic logical skills? Educational Studies, 8, 31-36.
29. Linn, M., & Hyde, J. (1989). Gender, mathematics, and science. Educational Researcher, 15, 22-27.
30. Linn, R., & Harnish D. (1981). Interactions between item content and group membership on achievement test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 18, 109-118.
31. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
32. Maccoby, E., & Jacklin, C. (1974). Psychology of sex differences. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
33. O'Neill, K., & McPeek, W. (1993). Item and test characteristics that are associated with differential item functioning. In P. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 255-276). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
34. Pallas, A., & Alexander, K. (1983). Sex differences in quantitative SAT performance: New evidence on the differential coursework hypothesis. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 165-182.
35. Pattison, P., & Grieve, N. (1984). Do spatial skills contribute to sex differences in different types of mathematical problems? Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 678-689.
36. Roussos, L., & Stout, W. (1996). A multidimensionality based DIF analysis paradigm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 355-371.
37. Ryan, K. E., & Chiu, S. (2001). An examination of item context effects, DIF, and gender DIF. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 73-90.
38. 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, 15-20, 38.
39. Scheuneman, J. D. (1987). An experimental, exploratory study of causes of bias in test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 3, 97-118.
40. Scheuneman, J. D., & Geritz, K. (1990). Using differential item functioning procedures to explore sources of item difficulty and group performance characteristics. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 109-131.
41. Schmitt, A. P., & Dorans, N. J. (1990). Differential item functioning for minority examinees on the SAT. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 67-81.
42. Shealy, R., & Stout, W. (1993). An item response theory model for test bias. In P. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 197-239). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
43. Sireci, G. S., Fitzgerald, C., & Xing, D. (1998). Adapting credentialing examinations for international uses (Laboratory of Psychometric and Evaluative Research Rep. No. 329). Amherst: University of Massachusetts, School of Education.
44. Stout, W., & Roussos, L. (1995). SIBTEST manual. Urbana: University of Illinois, Department of Statistics, Statistical Laboratory for Educational and Psychological Measurement.
45. Swafford, J. (1980). Sex differences in first-year algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 11, 335-346.
46. Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 361-370.
47. Walker, C. M., & Beretvas, S. N. (2001). An empirical investigation demonstrating the multidimensional DIF paradigm: A cognitive explanation for DIF. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 147-163.
48. Zwick, R., & Ercikan, K. (1989). Analysis of differential item functioning in the NAEP history assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 2, 55-66.