Correlates of Communalities as Matching Variables in Differential Item Functioning Analyses

Abstract

Farkl i leyen madde analizlerinde, birden fazla e leme desebeplerinin anla lmas na katk sa layabilir. Bu ba lamda, kullan labilecek ek e leme debir konudur. Bu çal ma, madde güçlüklerindeki ortak varyansla ili kili dekeni kullanmak, sorunun farkl i lemekenlerinin tespit edilmesi önemlikenlerin, farkl i leyen madde analizlerinde ekleme dekeni olarak kullan labilirli ini incelemektedir. Bu amaçla, Uluslararas Ö renci Ba ar De erlendirmeProgram (PISA) verileri incelenmi tir. Ö rencilerin okul dnda ö renme için harcad klar zaman, kullan labilir bir ekleme dekeni olarak tespit edilmi tir. Çok dekenli e leme yöntemiyle, bu dekenin baz sorulardaki farkl i lemeninsebebi olabilece i görülmü tür

Keywords

• çok dekenli e leme, farkl i leyen madde analizi, lojistik regresyon, PISA

References

1. Allolouf, A., Hambleton, R. K., & Sireci, S. G. (1999). Identifying the causes of DIF in translated verbal items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36 (3), 185-198.
2. Camilli, G. (2006). Test Fairness. In R.L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational Measurement. (4th edition, pp. 221- ).Westport, CT: Praeger.
3. Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items (Vol. 4). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Clauser, B. E., Nungester, R. J., & Swaminathan, H. (1996). Improving the matching for DIF analysis by conditioning on both test score and an educational background variable. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33(4), 453-464.
5. Ercikan, K., Gierl, M. J., McCreith, T., Puhan, G., & Koh, K. (2004). Comparability of bilingual versions of assessments: Sources of incomparability of English and French versions of Canada’s national achievement tests.
6. Applied Measurement in Education, 17, 301–321. Gierl, M. J. (2005). Using dimensionality based DIF analysis to identify and interpret constructs that elicit group differences. Educational Measurement Issues and Practice, 24 (1), 3-13.
7. Gierl, M. J., & Bolt, D. (2003 April). Implications of the multidimensionality-based DIF analysis framework for selecting a matching and studied subtest. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on
8. Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL. Grisay, A., & Monseur, C. (2007). Measuring the equivalence of item difficulty in the various versions of an international test. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33, 69-86.

9. Grisay, A., de Jong, J. H. L., Gebhardt, E., Berezner, A., & Halleux, B. (2006 July). Translation equivalence across
10. PISA countries. Paper presented at the 5th Conference of the International Test Commission, Brussels, Belgium. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. California: Sage.
11. Jodoin, M. G., & Gierl, M. J. (2001). Evaluating type I error and power rates using an effect size measure with the logistic regression procedure for DIF detection. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 329-349.
12. Kupermintz, H., Ennis, M., Hamilton, L., Talbert, J., & Snow, R. (1995). Enhancing the validity and usefulness of large- scale educational assessments: NELS 88 mathematics achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 554.
13. Molenaar, I. W. (1995). Estimation of item parameters. In G.H. Fischer & I.W. Molenaar (Eds.), Rash models: foundations, recent developments, and applications. (pp.39-51). New York: Springer.
14. OECD (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework: mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. Paris: OECD.
15. OECD (2005). PISA 2003 technical report. Paris: OECD.
16. Robin, F., Sireci, S. G., & Hambleton, R. K. (2003). Evaluating the equivalence of different language versions of a credentialing exam, International Journal of Testing, 3, 1–20.
17. Roussos, L., & Stout, W. (1996). A multidimensionality-based DIF analysis paradigm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 355-371.
18. Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, J. H. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures.
20. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(4), 361-370. Timmerman, M. E., Kiers, H. A. L., & Smilde, A. K. (2007). Estimating confidence intervals in principal component analysis: A comparison between the bootstrap and asymptotic results. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 60, 295-314. van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. van der Vijver, F., & Tanzer, N. K. (1998). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47, 263–279.
21. Verhelst, N. D., & Glass, C. A. W. (1995). The one parameter logistic model. In G.H. Fischer & I.W. Molenaar (Eds.),
22. Rash models: foundations, recent developments, and applications. (pp.215-237). New York: Springer. Verhelst, N. D., Glass, C. A. W., & Verstralen H. H. F. M. (1991). OPLM: a one parameter logistic model for dichotomous and polytomous data. Measurement and Research Department Reports. Arnhem: Cito.
23. Verhelst, N. D., Verstralen, H. H. F. M., & Eggen, Th. J. H. M. (1991). Finding starting values for the item parameters and suitable discrimination indices in the one-parameter logistic model. Measurement and Research Department Reports. Arnhem: Cito.
24. Wu, A. D., & Ercikan, K. (2007). Using multiple-variable matching to identify cultural sources of differential item functioning. International Journal of Testing, 6(3), 287-300.
25. Zwick, R., & Ercikan, K. (1989). Analysis of differential item functioning in the NAEP history assessment. Journal of
26. Denk yeterlik gruplar belirlemek üzere yap lan e le tirme, birden fazla e leme de kenine göre de yap labilir. Bu yöntemin, tek e leme de üstünlü ü vard r: 1) Yeterlik düzeyleri iki de birbirine daha benzer olacakt r. 2) Bir soruda, tek e leme de kene göre belirlendi inden, gruplar n yeterlikleri keni kullan ld nda tespit edilen farkl leyi , iki e leme de keni kullan lan F M analizinde görülmüyorsa, ikinci e leme de keninin gruplar aras ndaki performans farkl yla ili kili oldu u iddia edilebilir (Wu & Ercikan 2007).
27. Yöntem, Grisay ve Monseur’un (2007) çal mas nda kulland klar faktör çözümlemesine dayanmaktad r. Önerilen yöntemin i e yararl incelenmi tir. , PISA matematik s nav verileri kullan larak kinci e leme de kenini tespit etmek amac yla kullan lan faktör çözümlemesinde, gerekli veri, de de erleri, sorular n güçlük indisleridir. Bu indisler, her ülke için ayr ayr , ilgili ülke ö rencilerinin kenlerin sorulara verdikleri cevaplar kullan larak, Madde Tepki Kuram ’na (MTK) dayal kestirilmi tir.