PIRLS 2021'de değişen madde fonksiyonu: Okuduğunu anlama maddelerinde sosyoekonomik düzeye bağlı farklılıkların incelenmesi

Öz

Okuduğunu anlama becerileri, öğrencilerin akademik performanslarının önemli bir yordayıcısıdır. PIRLS 2021 kağıt-kalem testi verilerine dayanan bu çalışma, Türkiye, İrlanda ve Güney Afrika örneklemlerinde öğrencilerin sosyoekonomik düzeylerine göre çoktan seçmeli okuduğunu anlama maddelerinin farklı işleyip işlemediğini Değişen Madde Fonksiyonu aracılığıyla incelemektedir. Çalışmada “Where is the Honey?”, “Pemba Sherpa” ve “Marie Curie” adlı metinlerde yer alan toplam 21 çoktan seçmeli madde analiz edilmiştir. Değişen Madde Fonksiyonu analizleri, Mantel–Haenszel testi, Lojistik Regresyon ve Lord’un Ki-kare yöntemi kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, Değişen Madde Fonksiyonu gösteren madde sayısının en fazla Türkiye’de, en az ise Güney Afrika’da görüldüğünü ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca en fazla Değişen Madde Fonksiyonu tespiti yapan yöntemin Lojistik Regresyon olduğu belirlenmiştir. Söz konusu maddelerde öğrencilerin sosyoekonomik düzeylerine göre gözlemlenen işleyiş farklılıklarının; ülke, metin ve kullanılan yöntem değişkenlerine bağlı olarak anlamlı biçimde farklılaştığı görülmüştür. Özellikle Türkiye örnekleminde Değişen Madde Fonksiyonu gösteren madde sayısının görece yüksek olması dikkat çekmiştir. Ayrıca Lojistik Regresyon yönteminin Değişen Madde Fonksiyonu saptamada diğer yöntemlere kıyasla daha duyarlı sonuçlar verdiği gözlemlenmiştir. Sonuçlar, ölçme tarafsızlığının istatistiksel boyutun yanı sıra bağlamsal, kültürel ve bilişsel boyutlarda da değerlendirilmesi gerektiğine işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Okuduğunu anlama
• Değişen Madde Fonksiyonu
• sosyoekonomik düzey
• PIRLS

Differential item functioning in PIRLS 2021: An examination of socioeconomic status-based differences in reading comprehension items

Öz

Reading comprehension skills are critical predictors of students’ academic performance. This study, based on PIRLS 2021 paper-based test data, investigates whether multiple-choice reading comprehension items function differently according to students’ socioeconomic status (SES) in the samples of Türkiye, Ireland, and South Africa. A total of 21 multiple-choice items drawn from the following passages were analyzed: Where is the Honey?, Pemba Sherpa, and Marie Curie. The analyses of Differential Item Functioning (DIF) were conducted by using Mantel–Haenszel (MH) test, Logistic Regression (LR), and Lord’s Chi-Square method. The findings revealed that the highest number of items exhibiting Differential Item Functioning (DIF) was observed in Turkey, while the lowest was found in South Africa. Additionally, Logistic Regression was identified as the method that detected the greatest number of DIF items. Observed differences in item functioning by SES varied significantly across countries, passages, and DIF detection methods. Notably, the number of DIF items identified in the Turkish sample was relatively high. Furthermore, Logistic Regression (LR) demonstrated higher sensitivity in detecting DIF compared to the other methods employed. The results underscore the importance of evaluating measurement fairness not only from a statistical standpoint but also within contextual, cultural, and cognitive dimensions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Reading comprehension
• socioeconomic status
• PIRLS
• Differential Item Functioning

Kaynakça

1. Akay, A. (2004). İlköğretim 2. sınıf öğrencilerinin okuduğunu anlama becerilerinin matematik problemlerini çözme başarısına etkisi. [The effects of reading comprehension abilities of the 2nd grade primary school students over their problem solving achievements]. Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
2. Akilli, M. (2020). Understanding educational inequalities in Turkey: A multilevel analysis. Turkish Journal of Education, 9(2), 134–150.
3. Arviv Elyashiv, R., & Avidov-Ungar, O. (2023). Teachers' pedagogical implementation of the National Large-Scale Assessment (NLSA): Improving and advancing teaching-learning processes. Quality Assurance in Education, 31(2), 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-04-2022-0098
4. Atac, E. (2017). Türkiye’de Eğitimde Eşitsizlik ve Sınıfsal Ayrışma. [Regional Differences in Education in Turkiye]. Eğitim Bilim Toplum Dergisi, 15(60), 5–34.
5. BADAT, S. (2014). South African Higher Education, Political Change and Globalisation. In P. Pillay (Ed.), Higher Education in the BRICS Countries (pp. 87–138). Springer.
6. Baidoo-Anu, D., & Ennu Baidoo, I. (2022). Performance-based accountability: Exploring Ghanaian teachers’ perception of the influence of large-scale testing on teaching and learning. Education Inquiry, 15(3), 333–350.
7. Baker, F. B., & Kim, S. H. (2004). Item response theory: Parameter estimation techniques (2nd ed.). CRC Press.
8. Bayat, N., Şekercioğlu, G., & Bakir, S. (2014). Okuduğunu anlama ve fen başarısı arasındaki ilişkinin belirlenmesi. [Determining the Relationship Between Reading Comprehension and Science Achievement]. Egitim ve Bilim, 39(176), 457–466. doi:10.15390/EB.2014.3693

9. Berberoglu, G. (1995). Differential item functioning (DIF) analysis of computation, word problem and geometry questions across gender and SES groups. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 21, 439-456.
10. Berliner, D. C. (2013). Effects of inequality and poverty vs. teachers and schooling on America’s youth. Teachers College Record, 115(12), 1–26.
11. Bernardi, F., & Boertien, D. (2016). Understanding heterogeneity in the effects of parental separation on educational attainment in Britain: Do children from lower educational backgrounds have less to lose? European Sociological Review, 32(6), 807–819. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcw036
12. Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371–399.
13. Burkes, L. L. (2009). Identifying differential item functioning related to student socioeconomic status and investigating sources related to classroom opportunities to learn (Order No. 3360218). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304879353). https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/identifying-differential-item-functioning-related/docview/304879353/se-2
14. Camili, G., & Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Sage Publications.
15. Cano, J. A., & Hobson, S. M. (2011). Examining the effect of socioeconomic status on performance in state-wide assessments using DIF analysis. Journal of Educational measurement and evaluation, 6(1), 45-60.
16. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305–331.
17. Casabianca, J. M., & Lewis, C. (2017). A review of DIF methods and their application to reading assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 30(4), 275–295.
18. Castejón, A., & Zancajo, A. (2015). Educational differentiation policies and the performance of disadvantaged students across OECD countries. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
19. Chen, W. H., & Thissen, D. (1997). Local dependence indexes for item pairs using item response theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22(3), 265–289.
20. Chevalère, J., Florin, A., & Gombert, J.-E. (2021). The impact of home literacy environment on reading comprehension: A longitudinal approach. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 54, 49–61.
21. Chiu, M. M., Chow, B. W. Y., & Joh, S. W. (2022). Socioeconomic status and reading achievement across nations: The mediating role of home and school factors. International Journal of Educational Research, 111, 101899.
22. Claro, S., Paunesku, D., & Dweck, C. S. (2016). Growth mindset tempers the effects of poverty on academic achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(31), 8664–8668.
23. Clauser, B. E., & Mazor, K. M. (1998). Using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning test items. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(1), 31–44.
24. Copeland, A., & Arney, K. (2024). An exploration of the influences of childhood socioeconomic status on neural development and functioning. International Journal of Arts, Humanities & Social Science, 5(11), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.56734/ijahss.v5n11a4
25. Cummins, J. (2001). Bilingual Children’s Mother Tongue: Why Is It Important for Education? Sprogforum, 7(19), 15–20.
26. Çam, E., Ermiş, M., Yılmaz Hiğde, A., & Baştuğ, M. (2024). PIRLS 2021 Türkiye sonuçlarına göre öğrencilerin okuma tutumlarının okuma başarılarına etkisi: Ev ortamı desteğinin aracılık rolü. [The Effect of Students' Reading Attitudes on Their Reading Achievement According to PIRLS 2021 Türkiye Results: The Mediating Role of Home Environment Support] Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 14(3), 1497–1511. https://doi.org/10.30783/nevsosbilen.1516711
27. DES (Department of Education and Skills). (2017). DEIS Plan 2017: Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools. Dublin: Government of Ireland. https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-education/publications/deis-plan-2017/
28. Destin, M., Hanselman, P., Buontempo, J., Tipton, E., & Yeager, D. S. (2019). Do student mindsets differ by socioeconomic status and explain disparities in academic achievement in the United States? AERA Open, 5(3), 1–12.
29. Drabinová, A., & Martinková, P. (2017). Detection of differential item functioning with nonlinear regression: A non-IRT approach accounting for guessing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 54(4), 498–517.
30. Doyle, O., Delaney, L., & O’Farrelly, C. (2021). A good start in life: The importance of early childhood development. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 114(1), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076820962064
31. Doyle, O., McCoy, S., & Williams, J. (2021). The impact of early intervention programmes on educational outcomes: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 40(1), 110–136.
32. Elosua, P., & Mujika, J. (2007). The effect of language on item difficulty in the adaptation of verbal tests. International Journal of Testing, 7(2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305050701395337
33. Elosua, P., & Mujika, J. (2014). DIF analysis in a reading comprehension test: Gender and school ownership effect. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 19(1), 153–172.
34. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35. Enders, C. K. (2022). Applied missing data analysis (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
36. Ercan, H., & Cihangir Çankaya, Z. (2022). Uluslararası Öğrenci Başarı Ölçümlerinde Kültürel ve Dilsel Geçerlik: PIRLS Örneği [An Evaluation of Turkish Children’s Higher Order Thinking Skills based on the International PIRLS Applications Standards]. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 10(3), 897–924.
37. Ercikan, K., Roth, W.-M., & Asil, M. (2009). Cross-cultural comparisons and the value of differential item functioning analyses. International Journal of Testing, 9(2), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305050902808864
38. Erdem Keklik, D. (2014). Değişen madde fonksiyonunu belirlemede Mantel-Haenszel ve lojistik regresyon tekniklerinin karşılaştırılması. [Comparison of Mantel-Haenszel and Logistic Regression Techniques in Detecting Differential Item Functioning]. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 5(2), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.71099
39. Erman-Aslanoğlu, A., & Kutlu, Ö. (2015). Factors related to the reading comprehension skills of 4th grade students according to data of PIRLS 2001 Turkey. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(2), 1–18. http://ebad-jesr.com/
40. Ersan, Ö., & Çobanoğlu Aktan, D. (2024). Öğrencilerin sosyoekonomik durumu, içsel motivasyonu ve okulun başarıya verdiği önemin öğrencilerin matematik başarılarına etkisi. [The Effect of Students’ Socioeconomic Status, Intrinsic Motivation and Schools’ Emphasis on Academic Success on Their Mathematics Achievement]. Yaşadıkça Eğitim, 38(1), 152–170. https://doi.org/10.33308/26674874.2024381655
41. Eteng-Uket, S. (2021). Analysis of sociao-economic status and gender related differential item functioning using item response theory approach. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 16(2), 45-55.
42. Fishbein, B., Yin, L., & Foy, P. (2024). PIRLS 2021 User Guide for the International Database (2nd ed.). TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. https://pirls2021.org/data
43. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2019). How to design and evaluate research in education (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
44. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
45. Gelbal, S. (2008). 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin sosyo-ekonomik özelliklerinin Türkçe başarısı üzerindeki etkisi. [The Effect of Socio-Economic Status of Eighth Grade Students On Their Achievement in Turkish]. Eğitim ve Bilim, 150, 1–13.
46. Gitchel, D., Turner, R. C., & Rumrill, P. (2010). Differential item functioning in rehabilitation research. Work, 36(3), 361–369. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2010-1072
47. Gómez-Benito, J., Montesinos, M. D. H., & Padilla, J. (2009). Efficacy of effect size measures in logistic regression. Methodology, 5(1), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.5.1.18
48. Gök, B., Kellecioğlu, H., & Doğan, N. (2010). The Comparison of Mantel-Haenszel and Logistic Regression Techniques in Determining the Differential Item Functioning. Education and Science, 35(156). https://educationandscience.ted.org.tr/article/view/857
49. Göktaş, Ö., & Gürbüztürk, O. (2012). Okuduğunu anlama becerisinin ilköğretim ikinci kademe matematik dersindeki akademik başarıya etkisi. [The Effect of Reading Comprehension Skills on Academic Achievement in Second Grade Mathematics]. Uluslararası Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Çalışmaları Dergisi, 2(4), 52–66.
50. Güngör, M., & Demir, E. (2025, January 10–12). İkili puanlanan maddeler için değişen madde fonksiyonu belirleme tekniklerinin sınıflandırılmasına yönelik bir çalışma [A Study on Classification of Differential Item Functioning Detection Techniques for Dichotomously Scored Items]. XI. Ankara International Congress on Scientific Research, Ankara, Türkiye.
51. Güngör, Y. (2025). PIRLS 2021 Türkiye verileri ile sosyoekonomik düzeyin diferansiyel madde fonksiyonu üzerindeki etkisi. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırma Dergisi. (Yayımlanmak üzere kabul edildi).
52. Habib, M. (2016). Assessment of reading comprehension. Revista Românească pentru Educație Multidimensională, 8(1), 125–147. https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/2016.0801.08
53. Haggerty, K. (2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Policy: Futures in Education, 2(1), 1–21.
54. Hamilton, L. S. (2003). Assessment as a policy tool. Review of Research in Education, 27(1), 25–68. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X027001025
55. Hock, M. F., Brasseur, I. F., Deshler, D. D., Catts, H. W., Marquis, J. G., Mark, C. A., & Stribling, J. W. (2009). What is the reading component skill profile of adolescent struggling readers in urban schools? Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(1), 21–38.
56. Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. ETS Research Report Series, 1988(1), i–24.
57. Howie, S. J., & Plomp, T. (2006). Lessons from cross-national research or context and achievement: Hunting and fishing in the TIMSS landscape. In S. J. Howie & T. Plomp (Eds.), Contexts of learning mathematics and science (pp. 3–15). Routledge.
58. Howie, S. J., van Staden, S., Tshele, M., Dowse, C., & Zimmerman, L. (2012). PIRLS 2011 Summary Report: South African Children’s Reading Achievement. Centre for Evaluation and Assessment.
59. Howie, S. J., Venter, E., van Staden, S., Zimmerman, L., Long, C., Scherman, V., & Archer, E. (2012). PIRLS 2011: South African children’s reading literacy achievement. Centre for Evaluation and Assessment, University of Pretoria.
60. Huggins, C. F., Cameron, I. M., Scott, N. W., Williams, J. H. G., Yoshikawa, S., & Sato, W. (2021). Cross-cultural differences and psychometric properties of the Japanese Actions and Feelings Questionnaire (J-AFQ). Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 722108.
61. IEA. (2022). PIRLS 2021 Assessment Framework. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). https://www.iea.nl
62. IEA. (2023). PIRLS 2021 International Database. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. https://pirls2021.org/international-database/
63. IEA. (2023). PIRLS 2021 International Results in Reading. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. https://pirls2021.org/results
64. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (2021). PIRLS 2021: Take the ePIRLS assessment. Retrieved from https://www.iea.nl/studies/iea/pirls/2021/take-the-epirls-assessment
65. Jehangir, K., Glas, C. A. W., & van den Berg, S. (2015). Exploring the relation between socio economic status and reading achievement in PISA 2009 through an intercepts-and slopes-as-outcomes paradigm. International Journal of Educational Research, 71, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.02.002
66. Kabasakal, K. A., Gök, B., Kelecioğlu, H., & Arsan, N. (2012). Değişen madde fonksiyonunun belirlenmesinde kullanılan farklı yöntemlerin karşılaştırılması: Bir simülasyon çalışması. [Comparing Different Differential Item Functioning Methods: A Simulation Study]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 43(43), 270–281.
67. Kamata, A., & Binici, S. (2003, April). Investigation of differential item functioning using multilevel item response theory models. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Chicago, IL.
68. Kaya, M. (2022). Relationship among socioeconomic status, attitude toward science, school climate and students’ science achievement: A cross-country comparison of TIMSS. Science Education International, 33(4), 366–375.
69. Keklik, E. (2014). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin sınav performanslarında sosyoekonomik düzeyin etkisi: DMF açısından bir değerlendirme. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 10(4), 945–960.
70. Kennedy, E. (2013). Literacy Policy in Ireland: A Critical Review. European Journal of Education, 48(4), 563–577.
71. Kerem, E. A. (2007). Farklı dillerde okuma öğretimine karşılaştırmalı bir bakış. [A comparative look at reading instruction in different languages]. In A. Oktay & Ö. Polat Unutkan (Eds.), İlköğretimde alan öğretimi (pp. 43–64). Mopa Kültür Yayınları.
72. Kim, Y.-H., & Jang, E. E. (2009). Differential functioning of reading subskills on the OSSLT for L1 and ELL students: A multidimensionality model-based DBF/DIF approach. Language Learning, 59(4), 825–865.
73. Kuyumcu Vardar, A., & Sarıoğlu, S. (2017). İlkokul birinci sınıf öğrencilerinin okuma, yazma ve okuduğunu anlama düzeylerinin farklı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. [Investigation of Reading, Writing and Reading Comprehension Levels of First Grade Primary Students According to Different Variables]. Anadolu Eğitim Liderliği ve Öğretim Dergisi, 5(1), 28–43.
74. Lee, S., & Geisinger, K. F. (2015). Multidimensional item response theory models for detecting differential item functioning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 75(1), 51–67.
75. Li, H. H., & Stout, W. (1996). A new procedure for detection of crossing DIF. Psychometrika, 61(4), 647–677.
76. Lipson, M. Y. (1982). Learning new information from text: The role of prior knowledge and reading ability. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14(3), 243–261.
77. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Routledge. Lubienski, S. T., & Crane, C. C. (2010). Beyond free lunch: Which family background measures matter? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(11), 1–38.
78. Magis, D., Beland, S., Tuerlinckx, F., & De Boeck, P. (2010). A general framework and an R package for the detection of differential item functioning. Behavior Research Methods, 42(3), 847–862.
79. Martiniello, M. (2008). Language and the performance of English-language learners in math word problems: DIF analysis using thematic content. Educational Assessment, 13(2–3), 180–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627190802431427
80. Mantel, N., & Haenszel, W. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22(4), 719–748.
81. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–104). American Council on Education and Macmillan.
82. Michel, C. (2017). Comparing large-scale assessments in reading: The cases of PIRLS and PISA. In E. Hamel & C. Michel (Eds.), International perspectives on comparative education (pp. 89–108). Springer.
83. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2021, 1 Ocak). PIRLS 2021. https://pirls.meb.gov.tr/
84. Mthimkhulu, S., Roux, K., & Mihai, M. A. (2024). Investigating measurement invariance in PIRLS 2021 across English and Isizulu language groups. Reading & Writing, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.4102/rw.v15i1.455
85. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K. T. (2012). PIRLS 2011 International Results in Reading. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
86. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2017). PIRLS 2016 International Results in Reading. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
87. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2022). PIRLS 2021 International Results in Reading. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. https://pirls2021.org
88. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K. T. (2023). PIRLS 2021 International Results in Reading. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. Retrieved from https://pirls2021.org/results
89. Munir, J., Faiza, M., Jamal, B., Daud, S., & Iqbal, K. (2023). The impact of socio-economic status on academic achievement. Journal of Social Sciences Review, 3(2), 695–705. https://doi.org/10.54183/jssr.v3i2.308
90. Narayanan, P., & Swaminathan, H. (1996). Identification of items that show nonuniform differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20(3), 257–274.
91. Nichols, W. D., et al. (2022). Examining differential item functioning in international assessments using logistic regression: Challenges and best practices. International Journal of Testing, 22(2), 105–122.
92. Noble, M., Wright, G., & Cluver, L. (2004). Developing a child-focused and multidimensional model of child poverty for South Africa. Journal of Children and Poverty, 10(1), 53–69.
93. Ntumi, S., Bulala, T., Agbovor, D., & Sakyi, L. L. (2025). Bias in standardized testing? An item response theory analysis of cultural and religious influences of a multi-denominational educational system in Ghana and Botswana. University of Education, Winneba.
94. Odabaşı, Ş. Y. (2019). PISA 2015 fen okuryazarlığı testinin değişen madde fonksiyonu açısından incelenmesi. [Examination of the PISA 2015 Science Literacy Test in terms of Differential Item Functioning]. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Akdeniz Üniversitesi). Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
95. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: Learning to learn–Student engagement, strategies and practices (Vol. 3). OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2010/12/pisa-2009-results-learning-to-learn_g1g1184e.html
96. OECD. (2016). Low-Performing Students: Why They Fall Behind and How To Help Them Succeed. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/low-performing-students_9789264250246-en.html
97. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en
98. Özek, U. (2021). School type and student achievement in Turkey: Evidence from PISA. Economics of Education Review, 82, 102114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2021.102114
99. Perry, L. B., & McConney, A. (2010). School socio-economic composition and student outcomes in Australia: Implications for educational policy. Australian Journal of Education, 54(1), 72–85.
100. Raju, N. S., Fortmann-Johnson, K. A., Kim, W., Morris, S. B., & Nering, M. L. (2009). The item parameter replication method for detecting differential functioning in the polytomous DFIT framework. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33(2), 133–147.
101. Reddy, V., Zuze, T. L., & Visser, M. (2019). Beyond Benchmarks: What Twenty Years of TIMSS Data Tell Us about South African Education. Human Sciences Research Council.
102. Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(5), 667–696.
103. Roux, K., Staden, S. v., & Pretorius, E. J. (2022). Investigating the differential item functioning of a pirls literacy 2016 text across three languages. Journal of Education, (87), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.17159/2520-9868/i87a07
104. Rowe, K. (1995). Factors affecting students’ progress in reading. An International Journal of Early Literacy, 2, 1–54.
105. Shukla, P., Patel, M., & Sharma, M. (2022). Investigating differential item functioning in mathematics items using logistic regression method. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 3(7), 467–472.
106. Sideridis, G. D., & Alghamdi, M. (2024). Identifying quality responses using an analysis of response times: the rtcutoff function in r. Frontiers in Psychology, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1479249
107. Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417
108. Smith, C., Parr, N., & Muhidin, S. (2018). Mapping schools' NAPLAN results: a spatial inequality of school outcomes in Australia. Geographical Research, 57(2), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12317
109. Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for comprehension: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. RAND Corporation.
110. South African Department of Basic Education. (2019). Diagnostic report on quality education. Pretoria: DBE.
111. Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(4), 361–370.
112. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
113. Topping, K. (2011). PISA/PIRLS data on reading achievement: Transfer into international policy and practice. The Reading Teacher, 59(6), 588–590. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.59.6.9
114. UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Inclusion and education – All means all. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000383077
115. Van der Berg, S. (2008). How effective are poor schools? Poverty and educational outcomes in South Africa. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34(3), 145–154.
116. Vo, T. T., & French, B. F. (2021). An ecological framework for item responding within the context of a youth risk and needs assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 40(2), 1–9.
117. Vural, S. (2007). Ailenin Sosyoekonomik Düzeyinin Birinci Sınıf Öğrencilerini Aile, Öğretmen İletişimi ve Okuma Yazma Başarısı ile İlişkisi [Correlation Between Social Economic Status of First Grade Students and Communication of Parenst-Teacher, and Students’s Reading and Writing Achievement]. Sakarya Üniversitesi, Sakarya.
118. Yen, W. M. (1984). Effects of local item dependence on the fit and equating performance of the three-parameter logistic model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8(2), 125–145.
119. Zieky, M. (1993). DIF statistics in test development. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 337–347). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
120. Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF). Department of National Defense Canada.
121. Zumbo, B. D., & Thomas, D. R. (1997). A measure of effect size for a model-based approach for studying DIF. University of Northern British Columbia, Edgeworth Laboratory for Quantitative Behavioral Science.