Comparability of bilingual versions of assessments: Sources of incomparability of English and French versions of Canada's national achievement tests

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 301-321

  Ercikan, Kadriye ^a   Gierl, Mark J ^b   McCreith, Tanya ^a   Puhan, Gautam ^b   Koh, Kim ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 4644335997     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15324818ame1703_4     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. Ackerman, T. A. (1992). A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact, and item validity from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 67-91.
2. Allalouf, A., Hambleton, R., & Sireci, S. (1999). Identifying the causes of translation DIF on verbal items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 185-198.
3. Angoff, W. H., & Cook, L. L. (1988). Equating the scores of the Prueba de Aptitud Academica and the Scholastic Aptitude Test (College Board Rep. No. 88-2). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
4. Bock, R. D. (1972) Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika, 37, 29-51.
5. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1997). SAIP mathematics 1997 - The public report. Retrieved July 13, 2004, from http://www.cmec.ca/saip/math97/index.stm
6. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1998). SAIP reading and writing 1998 - The public report. Retrieved July 13, 2004, from http://www.cmec.ca/saip/rw981e/pages/tablee.stm
7. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1999). SAIP science 1999 - The public report. Retrieved July 13, 2004, from http://www.cmec.ca/saip/sci96/index.stm
8. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (2000). Report on science assessment, School Achievement Indicators Program, 1999. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Author.
9. CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1991). PARDUX [Computer software]. Monterey, CA: Author.
10. Ercikan, K. (1998). Translation effects in international assessments. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 543-553.
11. Ercikan, K. (1999, April). Translation DIF on TIMSS. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
12. Ercikan, K. & McCreith, T. (2002). Effects of adaptations on comparability of test items and test scores. In D. Robitaille & A. Beaton (Eds.), Secondary analysis of the TIMSS results: A synthesis of current research (pp. 391-407). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
13. Ercikan, K. (2002). Disentangling sources of differential item functioning in multilanguage assessments. International Journal of Testing, 4, 199-215.
14. Gierl, M. J., & Khaliq, S. N. (2001). Identifying sources of differential item and bundle functioning on translated achievement tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 164-187.
15. Gierl, M. J., Rogers, W. T., & Klinger, D. (1999, April). Consistency between statistical procedures and content reviews for identifying translation DIF. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
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, 229-224.
18. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
19. Linn, R. L., & Harnisch, D. L. (1981) Interactions between item content and group measurement on achievement test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 18, 109-118.
20. Lord, F. M. (1952). A theory of test scores. (Psychometrika Monograph No. 7). Richmond, VA: William Byrd Press.
21. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
22. Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of EMalgorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 159-176.
23. O'Neil, K. A., & McPeek, W. M., (1993). In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 255-276). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
24. Roussos, L. A., & Stout, W. F. (1996). Simulation studies of the effects of small sample size and studied item parameters on SIBTEST and Mantel-Haenszel type I error performance. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 215-230.
25. Sireci, S. G., & Berberoglu, G. (2000). Using bilingual respondents to evaluate translated-adapted items. Applied Measurement in Education, 35, 229-259.
26. Sireci, S. G., Fitzgerald, C., & Xing, D. (1998). Adapting credentialing examinations for international uses. (Laboratory of Psychometric and Evaluative Research Report No. 329). Amherst: University of Massachusetts, School of Education.
27. Shealy, R., & Stout, W.F. (1993). An item response theory model for test bias. In P.W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 197-239). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
28. van der Vijver, F., & Tanzer, N. K. (1998). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47, 263-279.
29. Yen, W. M. (1993). Scaling performance assessments: Strategies for managing local item dependence. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 187-214.
30. Zwick, R., & Ercikan, K. (1989). Analysis of differential item functioning in the NAEP history assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 55-66.