Test fairness: Internal and external investigations of gender bias in mathematics testing

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 20-26

  Langenfeld, Thomas E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WEST GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84990336062     PISSN: 07311745     EISSN: 17453992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1997.tb00582.x     Document Type: Article

References (44)

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. 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.
3. Benbow, C. I., & Stanley, J. C. (1980) Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact? Science, 210, 1262–1264.
4. Bridgeman, B., & Wendler, C. (1991) Gender differences in predictors of college mathematics performance in college mathematics course grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 275–284.
5. Burton, N. (1996) Have changes in the SAT affected women’s mathematics performance? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15(4), 5–9.
6. Burton, E., & Burton, N. (1993) The effects of item screening on test scores and test characteristics. In P W Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 321-335). Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum.
7. Camilli, G. (1992) A conceptual analysis of differential item functioning in terms of a multidimensional item response mode. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 129–147.
8. Cole, N. S., & Moss, I. A. (1989) Bias in test use. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement(3rd ed., pp. 201-219). New York: American Council in Education/Macmillan.
9. Doolittle, A. E. (1984, April). Interpretation of differential item performance accompanied by gender differences in academic background. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
10. Doolittle, A. E. (1985, April). Understanding differential item performance as a consequence of gender differences in academic background. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
11. Doolittle, A. E., & Cleary, T. A. (1987) Gender-based differential item performance in mathematics achievement items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 157–166.
12. Dorans, N. J., & Holland, I. W (1993) DIF detection and description: Mantel-Haenszel and standardization. In P W Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 35-66). Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum.
13. Dorans, N. J., & Kulick, E. (1986) Demonstrating the utility of the standardization approach to assessing unexpected differential item performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23, 355–368.
14. Educational Testing Service. (1991) Sex, race, ethnicity, and performance on the GRE general test: A technical report. Princeton, NJ Author.
15. Elliot, R., & Strenta, A. C. (1988) Effects of improving the reliability of the GPA on prediction generally and on comparative predictions for gender and race particularly. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25, 333–347.
16. Feingold, A. (1988) Cognitive gender differences are disappearing. American Psychologist, 43, 95–103.
17. Feingold, A. (1992) Sex differences in variability in intellectual abilities. Review of Educational Research, 62, 61–84.
18. Friedman, L. (1989) Mathematics and the gender gap: A meta-analysis of recent studies on sex differences in mathematical tasks. Review of Educational Research, 59, 185–213.
19. Halpern, D. F. (1992) Sex differences in cognitive abilities (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum.
20. Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985) Item response theory: Principles and applications. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
21. Harris, A. M., & Carlton, S. T. (1993) Patterns of gender differences on mathematics items on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Applied Measurement in Education, 6, 137–151.
22. Holland, I. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988) Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.) Test validity (pp. 129-145). Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum.
23. Holland, E W, & Wainer, H. (Eds.). (1993) Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum.
24. Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990) Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139–155.
25. Kessel, C., & Linn, M. C. (1996) Grades or scores: Predicting future College mathematics performance. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15 (4), 10–14.
26. Kimball, M. M. (1989) A new perspective on women’s math achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 198–214.
27. Lane, S., Wang, N., & Mazone, M. (1996) Gender-Related differential item functioning on a middle-school mathematics performance assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15 (4), 21–27.
28. Linn, M. C., & Hyde, J. S. (1989) Gender, mathematics, and science. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 17–27.
29. McCornack, R. L., & McLeod, M. M. (1988) Gender bias in the prediction of college course performance. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25, 325–331.
30. Messick, S. (1989) Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement(3rd ed., pp. 13-103.) New York: American Council on EducationlMacmillan.
31. Moss, P A. (1992) Shifting conceptions of validity in educational measurement: Implications for performance assessment. Review of Educational Research, 62, 229–258.
32. National Center for Education Statistics. (1993) Digest of education statistics1993. Washington: US. Department of Education.
33. O’Neill, K. A., Wild, C. L., & McPeek, W M. (1989, March). 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.
34. Raju, N. S. (1988) The area between two item characteristic curves. Psychometrika, 53, 495–502.
35. Ross, L. I., Clauser, B. E., Nandakumar, R., & Case, S. (1996, April). Assessing differential impact: Effects of DIF screening on examinee performance, test characteristics, and test dimensionality. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York.
36. Rosser, I (1989) Sex bias in college admission tests: Why women lose out. Cambridge, MA; FairTest.
37. Ryan, K., & Fann, M- C. (1996) Examining gender DIF on a multiple-choice test of mathematics: A confirmatory approach. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 15 (4), 15–20.
38. Scheuneman, J. D. (1987) An experimental, exploratory study of causes of bias in test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 97–118.
39. Schmitt, A. P, Holland, I. W, & Dorans, N. J. (1993) Evaluating hypotheses about differential item functioning. In P W Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.) Differential item functioning (pp. 281-315). Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum.
40. Shealy, R. T., & Stout, W. F. (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.
41. Shepard, L. A., Camilli, G., & Williams, D. M. (1985) Validity of approximation techniques for detecting item bias. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22, 77–105.
42. Sherman, J. (1983) Factors predicting girls’ and boys’ enrollment in College preparatory mathematics. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 7, 272–281.
43. Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990) Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 361–370.
44. Wainer, H., & Steinberg, L. S. (1992) Sex differences in performance on the mathematics section of the Scholastic Aptitude Test: A bidirectional validity study. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 323–336.