Gender DIF in Reading and Mathematics Tests With Mixed Item Formats

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 246-280

  Taylor, Catherine S ^a   Lee, Yoonsun ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b Seoul Women University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863595872     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08957347.2012.687650     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Ackerman, T. 1992. A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact, and item validity from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29: 67-91.
2. Ackerman, T. 1994. Using multidimensional item response theory to understand what items and tests are measuring. Applied Measurement in Education, 7: 255-278.
3. Ackerman, T. 1996. Graphical representation of multidimensional item response theory analyses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20: 311-329.
4. Backman, M. E. 1972. Patterns of mental abilities: Ethnic, socioeconomic, and sex differences. American Educational Research Journal, 9: 1-12.
5. Benbow, C. P. and Stanley, J. C. 1980. Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact?. Science, 210: 1262-1264.
6. Benbow, C. P. and Stanley, J. C. 1983. Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: More facts. Science, 222: 1029-1030.
7. Ben-Shakhar, G. and Sanai, Y. 1991. Gender differences in multiple-choice tests: The role of guessing tendencies. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28: 23-35.
8. Birenbaum, M. and Feldman, R. A. 1998. Relationships between learning patterns and attitudes towards two assessment formats. Educational Research, 40: 90-98.
9. Bolt, D. M. 2002. A Monte Carlo comparison of parametric and nonparametric polytomous DIF detection methods. Applied Measurement in Education, 15: 113-141.
10. Byrnes, J. P. and Takahira, S. 1993. Explaining gender differences on SAT-math items. Developmental Psychology, 29: 805-810.
11. Camilli, G. and Shephard, L. A. 1987. The inadequacy of ANOVA for detecting test bias. Journal of Educational Statistics, 12: 87-99.
12. Candell, G. L. and Drasgow, F. 1988. An iterative procedure for linking metrics and assessing item bias in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12: 253-260.
13. Carlton, S. T. and Harris, A. M. 1992. "Characteristics associated with differential item functioning on the Scholastic Aptitude Test: Gender and majority/minority group comparisons". In ETS Research Report 92-64, Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
14. Chang, H., Mazzeo, J. and Roussos, L. 1996. Detecting DIF for polytomously scored items: An adaptation of the SIBTEST procedure. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33: 333-353.
15. Clauser, B. E. and Mazor, K. M. 1998. Using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning test items. An NCME instructional module. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(1): 31-44.
16. Clauser, B., Mazor, K. and Hambleton, R. K. 1993. The effects of purification of the matching criterion on the identification of DIF using the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Applied Measurement in Education, 6: 269-279.
17. deWolf, V. A. 1981. High school mathematics preparation and sex differences in quantitative abilities. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5: 555-567.
18. Doolittle, A. E. and Cleary, T. A. 1987. Gender-based differential problem performance in mathematics achievement problems. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24: 157-166.
19. Engelhard, G. 1990. Accuracy of bias review judges in identifying differential item functioning on teacher certification tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 3: 347-360.
20. Fennema, E. and Carpenter, T. E. 1981. Sex-related differences in mathematics: Results from the national assessment. Mathematics Teacher, 74: 554-559.
21. Fennema, E. and Sherman, J. 1977. Sex related differences in mathematics achievement, spatial visualization and affective factors. American Educational Research Journal, 14: 51-71.
22. French, B. F. and Maller, S. J. 2007. Iterative purification and effect size use with logistic regression for differential item functioning detection. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67: 373-393.
23. Gallagher, A. M. 1998. Gender and antecedents of performance in mathematics testing. Teachers College Record, 100: 297-314.
24. Gallagher, A. M. and De Lisi, R. 1994. Gender differences in Scholastic Aptitude Test- Mathematics problem solving among high-ability students. Journal of Educational Measurement, 86: 204-211.
25. Garner, M. and Engelhard, G. 1999. Gender differences in performance on multiple-choice and constructed response mathematics items. Applied Measurement in Education, 12: 29-51.
26. Gierl, M., Gotzmann, J. and Boughton, K. 2004. Performance of SIBTEST when the percentage of DIF items is large. Applied Measurement in Education, 17: 241-264.
27. Haeok, K. 1990. A longitudinal study of sex-related bias in mathematics subtests of the California Achievement Test. Applied Measurement in Education, 3: 275-284.
28. Hanna, G. S. and Sonnenschein, J. L. 1985. Relative validity of the Orleans-Hanna Algebra Prognosis Test in the prediction of girls' and boys' grades in first-year algebra. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45: 361-367.
29. Harris, A. M. and Carlton, S. T. 1993. Patterns of gender differences on mathematics items on the scholastic aptitude test. Applied Measurement in Education, 6: 137-151.
30. Henderson, D. April 2001. Prevalence of gender DIF in Mixed format high school exit examinations, April, Seattle, WA: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
31. Hidalgo-Montesinos, M. D. and Gomez-Benito, J. 2003. Test purification and the evaluation of differential item functioning with multinomial logistic regression. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19: 1-11.
32. Hu, P. G. and Dorans, N. J. 1989. The effect of deleting differentially functioning items on equating functions and reported score distributions, Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
33. Ibarra, R. A. and Cohen, A. S. 1999. "Multicontextuality: A hidden dimension in testing and assessment". In New directions in assessment for higher education, 16-30. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. (GRE FAME Rep. 3;)
34. Jiang, H. and Stout, W. 1998. Improved type I error control and reduced estimation bias for DIF detection using SIBTEST. Journal of Educational and Behavioural Statistics, 23: 291-322.
35. Lane, S., Wang, N. and Magone, M. 1996. Gender-related differential item functioning on a middle-school mathematics performance assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 15(4): 21-27. 31
36. Lawrence, I. M. 1995. DIF data on free-response SAT I mathematical items, Princeton, NJ: ETS Report Number ETS-RR-95-22.
37. Lawrence, I. M. and Curley, W. E. 1989. Differential item functioning for males and females on SAT-Verbal reading subscore items: Follow-up study. ETS-RR-89-22, Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
38. Lawrence, I. M., Curley, W. E. and McHale, F. J. 1988. Differential item functioning for males and females on SAT-Verbal reading subscore items. College Board Report No. 88-4, New York: College Board.
39. Linacre, J. M. and Wright, B. D. 1989. Mantel-Haenszel DIF and PROX are equivalent!. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 3: 52-53.
40. Lord, F. M. 1980. Applications of Item Response Theory To Practical Testing Problems, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41. Marshall, S. E. 1984. Sex differences in children's mathematics achievement: Solving computations and story problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76: 194-204.
42. Mendes-Barnett, S. and Ercikan, K. 2006. Examining sources of gender DIF in mathematics assessments using a confirmatory multidimensional model approach. Applied Measurement in Education, 19: 289-304.
43. Miller, M. D. and Oshima, T. C. 1992. Effect of sample size, number of biased items, and magnitude of bias on a two-stage item bias estimation method. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16: 381-388.
44. Nandakumar, R. April 1994. Development of a valid subtest for assessment of DIF/bias, April, New Orleans: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
45. Narayanan, P. and Swaminathan, H. 1994. Performance of the Mantel-Haenszel and simultaneous item bias procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18: 315-328.
46. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2005). The Nation's Report Card. http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_grade12_2005/s0206.asp.
47. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2007). The Nation's Report Card. http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/writing_2007/
48. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2009). The Nation's Report Card. http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2009/.
49. Noble, A. C. April 1992. Differential item functioning in innovative-format mathematics items, April, San Francisco: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
50. O'Neill, K. A. and McPeek, W. M. 1993. "Item and test characteristics that are associated with differential item functioning". In Differential Item Functioning, Edited by: Holland, W. and Wainer, H. 255-276. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
51. Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. 2002. Using results to improve student learning: Reading grade 10 2002 released items, Olympia, WA: Author.
52. Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. 2003. Using results to improve student learning: Mathematics grade 10 2003 released items, Olympia, WA: Author.
53. Pallas, A. M. and Alexander, K. L. 1983. Sex differences in quantitative SAT performance: New evidence on the differential coursework hypothesis. American Educational Research Journal, 20: 165-182.
54. Pattison, P. and Grieve, N. 1984. Do spatial skills contribute to sex differences in different types of mathematical problems?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76: 678-689.
55. Plake, B. S. 1980. An investigation of the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills for sex bias: A developmental look. Psychology in the Schools, 17: 47-52.
56. Rogers, J. and Swaminathan, H. 1993. A comparison of the logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17: 105-116.
57. Roussos, L. A., Schnipke, D. L. and Pashley, P. J. 1999. A generalized formula for the Mantel-Haenszel differential item functioning parameter. Journal of Behavioral Statistics, 24: 293-322.
58. Roussos, L. A. and Stout, W. 1996. Simulation studies of the effects of small sample size and studied item parameters in SIBTEST and Mantel-Haenszel type I error performance. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33: 215-230.
59. Schmitt, A. P., Holland, P. W. and Dorans, N. J. October 1992. Evaluating hypotheses about differential item functioning, October, Princeton, New Jersey: Paper presented at the ETS/AFHRL Conference, Differential Item Functioning: Theory and Practice.
60. Shealy, R. and Stout, W. 1993. A model-based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from group ability differences and detects test bias/DTF as well as item bias/DIF. Psychometrika, 58: 159-194.
61. Stout, W. 1984. A statistical procedure for assessing test dimensionality. Measurement series 84-2, Arlington, VA: Office of Naval Research.
62. Su, Y.-H. and Wang, W.-C. 2005. Efficiency of the Mantel, generalized Mantel-Haenszel, and logistic discriminant function analysis methods in detecting differential item functioning for polytomous items. Applied Measurement in Education, 18: 313-350.
63. Threadgill-Sowder, J., Sowder, L, Moyer, J. C. and Moyer, M. B. 1985. Cognitive variables and performance on mathematical story problems. Journal of Experimental Education, 54: 56-62.
64. Walker, C. M. and Beretvas, S. N. 2000 April. Using multidimensional versus unidimensional ability estimates to determine student proficiency in mathematics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association 2000, New Orleans, LA
65. Zenisky, A. L., Hambleton, R. K. and Robin, F. 2004. DIF detection and interpretation in large-scale science assessments: Informing item writing practices. Educational Assessment, 9: 61-78.
66. Zumbo, B. D. 1999. A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (ordinal) item scores, Ottawa, ON: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.