Gender gap in comparative studies of reading comprehension: To what extent do the test characteristics make a difference?

European Educational Research Journal

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 69-79

  Lafontaine, Dominique ^a   Monseur, Christian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIÈGE   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 65449138396     PISSN: 14749041     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2304/eerj.2009.8.1.69     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Adams, R.J., Wilson, M.R. & Wang, W. (1997) The Multidimensional Random Coefficients Multinomial Logit Model, Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 1-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146621697211001
2. Adams, R.J. & Wu, M. (Eds) (2002) PISA 2000 Technical Report. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
3. Bennett, R.E. (1993) On the Meaning of Constructed Response, in R.E. Bennett & W.C. Ward (Eds) Construction versus Choice in Cognitive Measurement. Issues in Constructed Response, Performance Testing, and Portfolio Assessment, 1-27. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. DeMars, C.E. (2000) Test Stakes and Item Format Interaction, Applied Measurement in Education, 13(1), 55-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/ s15324818ame1301_3
5. Elley, W.B. (1994) The IEA Study of Reading Literacy: achievement and instruction in thirty-two school systems. London: Pergamon.
6. European Commission, Eurydice & Eurostat (2005) Key Data on Education in the European Union. Brussels: European Commission, Eurydice & Eurostat.
7. Kirsch, I., de Jong, J., Lafontaine, D., et al (2003) Reading for a Change. Performances and Engagement. Results from PISA 2000. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
8. Mazzeo, J., Schmitt, A.P. & Bleistein, C.A. (1991) Do Women Perform Better, Relative to Men, on Constructed-Response Tests or Multiple-Choice Tests? Evidence from the Advanced Placement Examinations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April.
9. Monseur, C. & Lafontaine, D. (2006) Le caractère relatif des indicateurs de tendance [Relative characteristics of trends indicators], Revue suisse des Sciences de l'Education, 3-28, 353-371. (In French)
10. Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Fierros, E.G., Goldberg, A.L. & Stemler, S.E. (2000) Gender Differences in Achievement. IEA's Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS International Study Centre, Boston College.
11. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1999) Measuring Students' Knowledge and Skills. A New Assessment Framework. PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.
12. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2001) Knowledge and Skills for Life: first Results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.
13. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2004) Learning for Tomorrow's World: first results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD.
14. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2005) PISA 2003 Technical Report. Paris: OECD.
15. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2007) Education at a Glance 2007. OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD.
16. Routitsky, A. & Turner, R. (2003) Item Format Types and their Influences on Cross-National Comparisons of Student Performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April.
17. Traub, R.E. & MacRury, K. (1990) Antwort-auswahl - vs freie-antwort-aufgaben bei lernerfolgs-test [Multiple choice vs. open ended for the learner test], in K. Ingenkamp & R.S. Jäger (Eds) Tests und trends 8: Jahrbuch der pädagogishen diagnostik, 128-159. Weinheim: Beltz Verlag. (In German)
18. Wu, M.L., Adams, R.J. & Wilson, M.R. (1997) ConQuest: Multi-Aspect Test Software [Computer software]. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.