Gender differences in large-scale math assessments: PISA trend 2000 and 2003

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 164-184

  Liu, Ou Lydia ^a,b   Wilson, Mark ^a,b  

^a EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67650474096     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08957340902754635     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Adams,R.J.,Wilson,M.,&Wang,W.C.(1997). Themultidimensionalrandomcoefficientsmultinomiallogitmodel. AppliedPsychologicalMeasurement,21,1-23.(Pubitemid127045375)
2. Allen, D. D., Wilson, M. (2006). Introducing multidimensional item response modeling in health behavior and health education research. Health Education Research, 21(1), 73-84.
3. Armstrong, J. M. (1985). A national assessment of participation and achievement of women in mathematics. In S. F. Chipman, L. R. Brush, & D. M. Wilson (Eds.), Women and mathematics: Balancing the equation (pp. 59-94). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Baenninger, M., & Newcombe, N. (1989). The role of experience in spatial test performance. A metaanalysis. Sex Roles, 20, 327-344.
5. Beller, M., & Gafni, N. (1996). Can item format (multiple-choice vs. open-ended) account for gender differences in mathematics achievement? Jerusalem: National Institute for Testing and Evaluation.
6. Beller, M., & Gafni, N. (2000). Can item format (multiple choice vs. open-ended) account for gender differences in mathematics achievement? Sex Roles, 42(1-2), 1-21.
7. Ben-shakar, G., & Sinai, Y. (1991). Gender differences in multiple-choice tests: The role of differential guessing tendencies. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 77-92.
8. Bolger, N., & Kellaghan, T. (1990). Method of measurement and gender differences in scholastic achievement. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 165-174.
9. Breland, H. M., Danos, D. O., Kahn, H. D., Kubota, M. Y., & Bonner, M. W. (1994). Performance versus objective testing and gender: An explanatory study of an advanced placement history examination. Journal of Education Measurement, 31, 275-293.
10. Bridgeman, B., & Wendler, C. (1991). Gender differences in predictors of college mathematics course grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 275-284.
11. Bridgeman, B., & Wendler, C. (2005). Characteristics of minority students who excel on the SAT and in the classroom. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
12. Briggs,D.C.,&Wilson,M.(2003).Anintroduction- multidimensionalmeasurementusingRaschmodels.JournalofAppliedMeasurement,4(1), 87-100.(Pubitemid37539052)
13. Burton,N.W.,&Lewis,C.(1996). GenderdifferencesincollegemathematicsgradesandSAT-Mscores: AreanalysisofWainer&Steinberg.JournalofEducationalMeasurement,33,257-270. (Pubitemid126318103)
14. Buss, D. M. (1995). Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological science. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 1-30.
15. Byrnes, J. P. (2005). Cognitive processes in an expanded framework. In A. M. Gallagher & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Gender differences in mathematics (pp. 73-98). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Carlton, S. T., & Harris, A. M. (1989, March). Characteristics of differential item performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Test-selected ethnic group comparisons. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco.
17. Casey, M. B., Nuttall, R., Pezaris, E., & Benbwo, C. P. (1995). The influence of spatial ability on gender differences in mathematics college entrance test scores across diverse samples. Developmental Psychology, 31, 697-705.
18. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. Cole, N. S. (1997). The ETS gender study: How females and males perform In educational settings. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
20. College Board (2005). 2005 College-bound seniors: Total group profile report. Author.
21. Colvin, R. L. (1996, November 21st). Global study finds U.S. student weak in math. Los Angeles Times, Al, A24-25.
22. DeMars,C.E.(1998). Genderdifferencesinmathematicsandscienceonahighschoolproficiencyexam: Theroleofresponseformat.AppliedMeasurementinEducation,11(3),279-299. (Pubitemid128097907)
23. DeMars, C. E. (2000). Test stakes and item format interactions. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(1), 55-77.
24. Doolittle, A. E., & Cleary, T. A. (1987). Gender-based differential item performance in mathematics achievement items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24(2), 157-166.
25. Feingold, A. (1988). Cognitive gender differences are disappearing. American Psychologist, 43, 181-191.
26. Fennema, E., & Peterson, P. (1985). Autonomous learning behavior: A possible explanation of gender-related differences in mathematics. In L. C. Wilkinson & C. B. Marett (Eds.), Gender influences In classroom Interaction (pp. 17-35). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
27. Gallagher, A. M. (1992). Sex differences In problem-solving strategies used by high-scoring examinees on the SAT-M (College Board Rep. No. 92-2; ETS RR No. 92-93). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
28. Gallagher,A.M.(1998). Genderandantecedentsofperformanceinmathematicstesting.TeachersCollegeRecord, 100(2),297-314.(Pubitemid128185179)
29. Gallagher, A. M., & De Lisi, R. (1994). Gender differences in scholastic aptitude testmathematics problem solving among high ability students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 204-211.
30. Gallagher, A. M., De Lisi, R., Holst, P. C., McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. V., Morely, M., & Cahalan, C. (2000). Gender differences in advanced mathematical problem solving. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 75, 165-190.
31. Gaulin, S. J. C. (1995). Does evolutionary theory predict sex differences in the brain? In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 1211-1225). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32. Geary, D. C. (1996). Response: A biosocial framework for studying cognitive sex differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 55-60. (Pubitemid 126400631)
33. Gierl,M.J.,Bisanz,J.,Bisanz,G.L.,&Boughton,K.A.(2003). Identifyingcontentandcognitiveskillsthatproducegenderdifferencesinmathematics: AdemonstrationofthemultidimensionalitybasedDIFanalysisparadigm. JournalofEducationalMeasurement,40(4),281-306.(Pubitemid38483765)
34. Hanna, G. (1986). Sex differences in a casual model of mathematics achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 361-377.
35. Halpern,D.F.(1997).Sexdifferencesinintelligence:Implicationsforeducation. AmericanPsychologist,52,1091-1102.(Pubitemid127681379)
36. Halpern, D. F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
37. Harris, J. W. (1971). Aspects of the guessing behavior of young Irish subjects on multiple-choice Items. Unpublished master's thesis, University College, Cork, Ireland.
38. Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139-155.
39. Kimball, M. M. (1989). A new perspective on women's math achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 198-214.
40. Klein,S.P.,Jovanovic,J.,Stecher,B.M.,McCaffrey,D.,Shavelson,R.J.,Haertel, E.,SolanoFlores,G.,&Comfort,K.(1997).Genderandracial/ ethnicdifferencesonperformanceassessmentsinscience.EducationalEvaluation& PolicyAnalysis,19(2),83-97.(Pubitemid127341550)
41. Lachance, J. A., & Mazzocco, M. M. (2006). A longitudinal analysis of sex differences in math and spatial skills in primary school age children. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 195-216. (Pubitemid 44283636)
42. Linn, M. C., & Hyde, J. S. (1989). Gender, mathematics, and science. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 17-19, 22-27.
43. Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1986). A meta-analysis of gender differences in spatial ability: Implications for ma and science achievement. In J. S. Hyde & M. C. Linn (Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 67-101). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
44. Liu, O. L. (2006). Evaluating differential gender performance on large-scale math assessments: A multidimensional Rasch modeling and mixture approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
45. Marshall, S. P., & Smith, J. D. (1987). Sex differences in learning mathematics: A longitudinal study with item and error analyses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 372-383.
46. Maccoby, E. E, & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. London: Oxford University Press.
47. Mislevy, R., & Verhelst, N. (1990). Modeling item responses different subjects employ different solution strategies. Psychometrika, 55(2), 195-215.
48. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Foy, P. (2005). IEA 's TIMSS 2003 international report on achievement in the mathematics cognitive domains. Chest3nut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
49. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., Gregory, K. D., Garden, R. A., O'Connor, K. M., Chrostowski, S. J., & Smith, T. A. (2000). TIMSS 1999 international mathematics report. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
50. Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Fierros, E. G., Goldberg, A. L. & Stemler, S. E. (2000) Gender differences in achievement: TIMSS. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
51. Murphy, R. J. L. (1982). Sex differences in objective test performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 213-219.
52. National Science Foundation. (2000). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2000 (NSF Publication No. 00-327). Arlington, VA: Author.
53. Necombe, N. S., Mathason, L., & Terlecki, M. (2002). Maximization of spatial competence: More important than finding the cause of sex differences. In A. McGillicuddy-De Lisi & R. De Lisi (Eds.), Biology, society and behavior: The development of sex differences in cognition (pp. 183-206). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
54. Nowell,A.,&Hedges,L.V.(1998). Trendsingenderdifferencesinacademicachievementfrom1960-1994: Ananalysisofdifferencesinmean,variance,andextremescores.SexRoles,39(112),21-43. (Pubitemid128361118)
55. Nuttall, R. L., Casey, M. B., & Pezaris, E. (2005). Spatial ability as a mediator of gender differences on mathematics tests. In A. M. Gallagher & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Gender differences in mathematics (pp. 121-142). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56. O'Neill, K. A., & McPeek, W. M. (1993). Item and test characteristics that are associated with differential item functioning. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 255-279). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
57. O'Neill, K. A., Wild, C. L., & McPeek, W. M. (1989). Gender-related differential item performance on graduate admissions tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco.
58. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2000a). Knowledge and skills for life: First results from PISA 2000. Paris: Author.
59. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2000b). PISA 2000 technical report. Paris: Author.
60. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework-mathematics, reading, science and problem-solving knowledge and skills. Paris: Author.
61. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2004). Learning for tomorrow's world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: Author.
62. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005a). PISA 2003 technical report. Paris: Author.
63. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005b). PISA 2003 data analysis manual: SPSS Users. Paris: Author.
64. Owen,K.,&Lynn,R.(1993). SexdifferencesinprimarycognitiveabilitiesamongBlacks, IndiansandWhitesinSouthAfrica.JournalofBiosocialScience,25,557-560. (Pubitemid23284856)
65. Perie, M. (1994). Differential performance on mathematics achievement between the sexes explained through differential strategy selection. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(05), 1250. (University Microfilms No. AAC 9425685)
66. Perie, M., Moran, R., & Lutkus, A. D. (2005). NAEP 2004 trends in academic progress: Three decades of student performance in reading and mathematics (NCES 2005-464), figures 2-4, 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7. Data from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1973-2004 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessment.
67. Reis,S.M.,&Park,S.(2001).Genderdifferencesinhigh- achievingstudentsinmathandscience.JournalfortheEducationoftheGifted,25,52-73. (Pubitemid33385982)
68. Ryan,K.E.,&Chiu,S.(2001).Anexaminationofitemcontexteffects,DIF, andgenderDIF.AppliedMeasurementinEducation,14,73-90.(Pubitemid33214945)
69. Schram,C.(1996).Ameta- analysisofgenderdifferencesinappliedstatisticsachievement. JournalofEducationalandBehavioralStatistics,27(1),55-70.(Pubitemid126415178)
70. Silverman, I., Phillips, K., & Silverman, L. K. (1996). Homogeneity of effect sizes for sex across spatial tests and cultures: Implications for hormonal theories. Brain and Cognition, 31, 90-94. (Pubitemid 126413094)
71. Stanley, J. (1990, January). We need to know why women falter in math. The Chronicle of Higher Education, B4.
72. Stumpf, H., & Jackson, D. N. (1994). Gender-related differences in cognitive abilities: Evidence from a medical school admissions testing program. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 335-344.
73. Stumpf, H. (1995). Gender differences in performance on tests of cognitive abilities: Experimental design issues and empirical results. Learning and Individual Differences, 7(4), 275-287.
74. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2001). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2001 (121st ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
75. U.S. Department of Education. (2005). The digest of education statistics: 2005. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
76. U.S. Department of Education. (2001). The NAEP 1998 technical report (NCES 2001-509). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
77. U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Third international mathematics and science study 1999 video study technical report volumeI: Mathematics (NCES 2003-012). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
78. Wang, W. (1999). Direct estimation of correlations among latent traits within IRT framework. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 4(2), 47-70.
79. Wang, W., Wilson, M., & Adams, R. J. (1997). Rasch models for multidimensionality between and within items. In M. Wilson and G. Engelhard, (Eds.), Objective measurement: Theory into practice. Vol IV. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
80. Wester, A. (1995). The importance of item format with respect to gender differences in test performance: A study of open-format items in the DTM test. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 39, 335-346.
81. Wester, A., & Henriksson, W. (2000). The interaction between item format and gender differences in mathematics performance based on TIMSS data. Studies In Educational Evaluation, 26, 79-90.
82. Wigfield. A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A. J. A., Freedman-Doan, C., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1997). Change in children's competence beliefs and subjective task values across the elementary school years: A 3-year study. Developmental Psychology, 89, 451-468. (Pubitemid 127122607)
83. Willingham, W.W., & Cole, N. S. (1997). Gender and fair assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
84. Wolfe, E., Viger, S. G., Jarvinen, D. W., & Linksman, J. (2007). Validation of scores from a measure of teachers' efficacy toward standards-aligned classroom assessment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(3), 460-474.
85. Wu, M., & Adams, R. J. (2002, April). Plausible values-Why they are important. Paper presented at the International Objective Measurement Workshop, New Orleans.
86. Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., & Wilson, M. R. (1998). ConQuest. Melbourne, Australia: ACER.