The school age gender gap in reading achievement: Examining the influences of item format and intrinsic reading motivation

Reading Research Quarterly

Volumn 50, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 219-232

  Schwabe, Franziska ^a   McElvany, Nele ^a   Trendtel, Matthias ^b  

^a TU DORTMUND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b Innovation and Development of the Austrian School System   (Austria)

Author keywords

Assessment; Childhood; Comprehension; Intrinsic; Motivation engagement; Outcomes; Research methodology; Standardized; Survey

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925830007     PISSN: 00340553     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/rrq.92     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Angoff, W.H., (1993). Perspectives on differential item functioning methodology. In, P.W. Holland, &, H. Wainer, (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 3-23). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Archambault, I., Eccles, J., &, Vida, M., (2010). Ability self-concepts and subjective value in literacy: Joint trajectories from grades 1 through 12. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102 (4), 804-816. doi: 10.1037/a0021075
3. Asparouhov, T., &, Muthén, B., (2008). Chi-square statistics with multiple imputation: Technical appendix. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
4. Bacon, D.R., (2003). Assessing learning outcomes: A comparison of multiple-choice and short-answer questions in a marketing context. Journal of Marketing Education, 25 (1), 31-36. doi: 10.1177/0273475302250570
5. Bandura, A., (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
6. Becker, M., McElvany, N., &, Kortenbruck, M., (2010). Intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation as predictors of reading comprehension: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102 (4), 773-785. doi: 10.1037/a0020084
7. Bennett, R.E., (1993). On the meanings 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 (pp. 1-27). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Ben-Shakhar, G., &, Sinai, Y., (1991). Gender differences in multiple-choice tests: The role of differential guessing tendencies. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28 (1), 23-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1991.tb00341.x
9. Clinton, V., Seipel, B., van den Broek, P., McMaster, K., Kendeou, P., Carlson, S., &, Rapp, D.N., (2012). Gender differences in inference generation by fourth-grade students. Journal of Research in Reading, 00, 1-18. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01531.x
10. Cohen, J., (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20 (1), 37-46. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000104
11. Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J., Fishman, B., Giuliani, S., Luck, M., Underwood, P.S., &, Bayraktar, A., (2011). Testing the impact of child characteristics × instruction interactions on third graders' reading comprehension by differentiating literacy instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 46 (3), 189-221. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.46.3.1
12. Conradi, K., Jang, B.G., &, McKenna, M.C., (2014). Motivation terminology in reading research: A conceptual review. Educational Psychology Review, 26 (1), 127-164. doi: 10.1007/s10648-013-9245-z
13. De Boeck, P., Bakker, M., Zwitser, R., Nivard, M., Hofman, A., Tuerlinckx, F., &, Partchev, I., (2011). The estimation of item response models with the lmer function from the lme4 package in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 39 (12), 1-28.
14. DESI-Konsortium. (Ed.). (2008). Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch: Ergebnisse der DESI-Studie [Teaching and competence acquisition in German and English: Results of the DESI study]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
15. Duckworth, A.L., Quinn, P.D., Lynam, D.R., Loeber, R., &, Stouthamer-Loeber, M., (2011). Role of test motivation in intelligence testing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108 (19), 7716-7720. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1018601108
16. Farris, P.J., Werderich, D.E., Nelson, P.A., &, Fuhle, C.J., (2009). Male call: Fifth-grade boys' reading preferences. The Reading Teacher, 63 (3), 180-188. doi: 10.1598/RT.63.3.1
17. Geske, A., &, Ozola, A., (2010, July). Differential item functioning in the aspect of gender differences in reading literacy. Paper presented at the 4th IEA International Research Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden.
18. Grisay, A., &, Monseur, C., (2007). Measuring the equivalence of item difficulty in the various versions of an international test. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33 (1), 69-86. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2007.01.006
19. Guthrie, J.T., &, Wigfield, A., (2005). Roles of motivation and engagement in reading comprehension assessment. In, S.G. Paris, &, S.A. Stahl, (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 187-214). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Haladyna, T.M., &, Rodriguez, M.C., (2013). Developing and validating test items. New York, NY: Routledge.
21. Halpern, D.F., (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Hannon, B., (2014). Are there gender differences in the cognitive components of adult reading comprehension? Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 69-79. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.03.017
23. Hyde, J.S., &, Linn, M.C., (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104 (1), 53-69. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.104.1.53
24. Kane, M., (2012). All validity is construct validity: Or is it? Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 10 (1/2), 66-70. doi: 10.1080/15366367.2012.681977
25. Kiefer, T., Robitzsch, A., &, Wu, M., (2013). TAM: Test analysis modules (R package version 0.7-35). Retrieved from CRAN.R-project.org/package=TAM
26. Kieffer, M.J., Vukovic, R.K., &, Berry, D., (2013). Roles of attention shifting and inhibitory control in fourth-grade reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 48 (4), 333-348. doi: 10.1002/rrq.54
27. Lafontaine, D., &, Monseur, C., (2009). Gender gap in comparative studies of reading comprehension: To what extent do the test characteristics make a difference? European Educational Research Journal, 8 (1), 69-79. doi: 10.2304/eerj.2009.8.1.69
28. Lietz, P., (2006). Issues in the change in gender differences in reading achievement in cross-national research studies since 1992: A meta-analytic view. The International Education Journal, 7 (2), 127-149.
29. Logan, S., &, Johnston, R., (2009). Gender differences in reading ability and attitudes: Examining where these differences lie. Journal of Research in Reading, 32 (2), 199-214. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.01389.x
30. Lynn, R., &, Mikk, J., (2009). Sex differences in reading achievement. Trames, 13 (1), 3-13. doi: 10.3176/tr.2009.1.01
31. Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., &, Kennedy, A.M., (2007). PIRLS 2006 technical report. Chestnut Hill, MA: International Study Center, Boston College.
32. McGeown, S., Goodwin, H., Henderson, N., &, Wright, P., (2012). Gender differences in reading motivation: Does sex or gender identity provide a better account? Journal of Research in Reading, 35 (3), 328-336. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01481.x
33. McKenna, M.C., Conradi, K., Lawrence, C., Jang, B.G., &, Meyer, J.P., (2012). Reading attitudes of middle school students: Results of a U.S. survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 47 (3), 283-306. doi: 10.1002/RRQ.021
34. Mucherah, W., &, Yoder, A., (2008). Motivation for reading and middle school students' performance on standardized testing in reading. Reading Psychology, 29 (3), 214-235.
35. Mücke, S., (2009). Schulleistungen von Jungen und Mädchen in der Grundschule: Eine metaanalytische Bilanz [School achievement of boys and girls in elementary school: Results from a meta-analysis]. Empirische Pädagogik, 23 (3), 290-337.
36. 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 Center, Boston College.
37. Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Foy, P., &, Drucker, K.T., (2012). The PIRLS 2011 international results in reading. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
38. Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Kennedy, A.M., Trong, K.L., &, Sainsbury, M., (2009). The PIRLS 2011 assessment framework. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
39. National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2011 (NCES 2012-457). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
40. Oakhill, J.V., &, Petrides, A., (2007). Sex differences in the effects of interest on boys' and girls' reading comprehension. British Journal of Psychology, 98 (2), 223-235. doi: 10.1348/000712606X117649
41. OECD. (2009). PISA 2009 assessment framework: Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Paris, France: Author. doi: 10.1787/9789264062658-en
42. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do: Student performance in reading, mathematics and science (Vol. 1). Paris, France: Author. doi: 10.1787/9789264091450-en
43. OECD. (2012). PISA 2009 technical report. Paris, France: Author. doi: 10.1787/9789264167872-en
44. Petscher, Y., (2010). A meta-analysis of the relationship between student attitudes towards reading and achievement in reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 33 (4), 335-355. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01418.x
45. Pfost, M., Dörfler, T., &, Artelt, C., (2012). Reading competence development of poor readers in a German elementary school sample: An empirical examination of the Matthew effect model. Journal of Research in Reading, 35 (4), 411-426. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01478.x
46. Pintrich, P.R., &, Schunk, D.H., (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.
47. Priess, H.A., &, Hyde, J.S., (2010). Gender and academic abilities and preferences. In, J.C. Chrisler, &, D.R. McCreary, (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 297-316). New York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1465-1-15
48. R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from www.r-project.org
49. Rodriguez, M.C., (2003). Construct equivalence of multiple-choice and constructed-response items: A random effects synthesis of correlations. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40 (2), 163-184. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.2003.tb01102.x
50. Routitsky, A., &, Turner, R., (2003, April). 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, IL.
51. Rubin, D.B., (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York, NY: Wiley. doi: 10.1002/9780470316696
52. Schaffner, E., Phillip, M., &, Schiefele, U., (2014). Reciprocal effects between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence? A cross-lagged panel model for academic track and nonacademic track students. Journal of Research in Reading. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1111/1467-9817.12027
53. Schiefele, U., Schaffner, E., Möller, J., &, Wigfield, A., (2012). Dimensions of reading motivation and their relation to reading behavior and competence. Reading Research Quarterly, 47 (4), 427-463. doi: 10.1002/RRQ.030
54. Schwippert, K., Bos, W., &, Lankes, E.M., (2004). Lesen Mädchen anders? Vertiefende Analysen zu Geschlechtsdifferenzen auf Basis der Internationalen Grundschul-Lese-Untersuchung IGLU [Do girls read differently? In-depth analyses of gender differences based on the Progress in Reading Literacy Study PIRLS]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 7 (2), 219-234. doi: 10.1007/s11618-004-0023-z
55. Seipel, B., Clinton, V., &, Carlson, S.E., (2012, May). Gender differences in episodic memory reflected in text-connecting inferences. Poster presented at the 24th annual meeting of the Association for Psychological Science, Chicago, IL.
56. Senn, N., (2012). Effective approaches to motivate and engage reluctant boys in literacy. The Reading Teacher, 66 (3), 211-220. doi: 10.1002/TRTR.01107
57. Simkin, M.G., &, Kuechler, W.L., (2005). Multiple-choice tests and student understanding: What is the connection? Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 3 (1), 73-98. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4609.2005.00053.x
58. Snow, C.E., (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
59. Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., &, Griffin, P., (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
60. Solheim, O.J., (2011). Impact of reading self-efficacy and task value on reading comprehension scores in different item formats. Reading Psychology, 32 (1), 1-27. doi: 10.1080/02702710903256601
61. Swalander, L., &, Taube, K., (2007). Influences of family-based prerequisites, reading attitude, and self-regulation on reading ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32 (2), 206-230. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.01.002
62. Taylor, C.S., &, Lee, Y., (2012). Gender DIF in reading and mathematics tests with mixed item formats. Applied Measurement in Education, 25 (3), 246-280. doi: 10.1080/08957347.2012.687650
63. van Buuren, S., &, Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K., (2011). MICE: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45 (3), 1-67.
64. von Davier, M., Gonzalez, E., Kirsch, I., &, Yamamoto, K., (2013). The role of international large-scale assessments: Perspectives from technology, economy, and educational research. New York, NY: Springer.
65. Wainer, H., &, Thissen, D., (1993). Combining multiple-choice and constructed-response test scores: Toward a Marxist theory of test construction. Applied Measurement in Education, 6 (2), 103-118. doi: 10.1207/s15324818ame0602-1
66. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J.S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R.W., &, Davis-Kean, P., (2006). Development of achievement motivation. In, W. Damon, &, R.M. Lerner, (Series Eds.), &, N. Eisenberg, (Vol. Ed.), Social, emotional, and personality development: Vol. 3. Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., pp. 933-1002). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
67. Wigfield, A., &, Guthrie, J.T., (1997). Relations of children's motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89 (3), 420-432. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.420
68. Willingham, W.W., &, Cole, N.S., (1997). Gender and fair assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
69. Zeidner, M., (1987). Essay versus multiple-choice type classroom exams: The student's perspective. The Journal of Educational Research, 80 (6), 352-358.
70. Zenisky, A.L., Hambleton, R.K., &, Robin, F., (2004). DIF detection and interpretation in large-scale science assessments: Informing item writing practices. Educational Assessment, 9 (1/2), 61-78. doi: 10.1080/10627197.2004.9652959