Exploring undue advantage of differential item functioning in high-stakes assessments: Implications on sustainable development goal 4

Social sciences & humanities open Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-28 DOI:10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101257
Oluwaseyi Aina Gbolade Opesemowo
{"title":"Exploring undue advantage of differential item functioning in high-stakes assessments: Implications on sustainable development goal 4","authors":"Oluwaseyi Aina Gbolade Opesemowo","doi":"10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In ensuring equity of measurement between subgroups at the item level, Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analysis is essential. However, discounting DIF affects validity, thereby making Sustainable Development goal 4 (SDG4) challenging to attain. DIF occurs when test items behave differently for distinct subgroups, potentially leading to biased outcomes and undue advantages to one group over the other. The study aims to examine DIF in high-stakes assessment among the demographic variables (such as gender, school-type, and region). The study investigates DIF in the National Examination Council (NECO) mathematics items, focusing on gender, location and school-type. The expo facto research design employed a proportionate sample size to select 14,936 responses from the 1,034,629 senior secondary school students who participated in the NECO mathematics examination. The NECO mathematics items serve as the research instrument while unveiling Cronbach alpha of 0.84 coefficient. The study revealed significant DIF across gender, location and school-type in mathematics items. The findings feature the importance of addressing DIF in high-stakes assessments to ensure equal opportunities for all students, regardless of their demographics. The study concludes that careful review should be done in developing high-stakes assessments to eliminate potential biases that may disadvantage certain groups of students. This research contributes to the ongoing discourse on assessment validity and fairness, offering insight for practitioners and policymakers to enhance the integrity of high-stakes assessments.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74826,"journal":{"name":"Social sciences & humanities open","volume":"11 ","pages":"Article 101257"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social sciences & humanities open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590291124004546","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In ensuring equity of measurement between subgroups at the item level, Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analysis is essential. However, discounting DIF affects validity, thereby making Sustainable Development goal 4 (SDG4) challenging to attain. DIF occurs when test items behave differently for distinct subgroups, potentially leading to biased outcomes and undue advantages to one group over the other. The study aims to examine DIF in high-stakes assessment among the demographic variables (such as gender, school-type, and region). The study investigates DIF in the National Examination Council (NECO) mathematics items, focusing on gender, location and school-type. The expo facto research design employed a proportionate sample size to select 14,936 responses from the 1,034,629 senior secondary school students who participated in the NECO mathematics examination. The NECO mathematics items serve as the research instrument while unveiling Cronbach alpha of 0.84 coefficient. The study revealed significant DIF across gender, location and school-type in mathematics items. The findings feature the importance of addressing DIF in high-stakes assessments to ensure equal opportunities for all students, regardless of their demographics. The study concludes that careful review should be done in developing high-stakes assessments to eliminate potential biases that may disadvantage certain groups of students. This research contributes to the ongoing discourse on assessment validity and fairness, offering insight for practitioners and policymakers to enhance the integrity of high-stakes assessments.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
探讨高风险评估中差别项目功能的不当优势:对可持续发展目标4的影响
为了确保子组之间在项目层面的测量公平,差异项目功能(DIF)分析是必不可少的。然而,折扣DIF会影响有效性,从而使可持续发展目标4 (SDG4)难以实现。当测试项目在不同的子组中表现不同时,就会发生DIF,这可能导致有偏见的结果,并使一个组比另一个组具有不应有的优势。本研究旨在检验在人口统计变量(如性别、学校类型和地区)中高风险评估中的DIF。该研究调查了国家考试委员会(NECO)数学项目中的DIF,重点关注性别、地点和学校类型。实证研究设计采用比例样本量,从参加NECO数学考试的1,034,629名高中生中抽取14,936份回复。NECO数学项目作为研究工具,揭示了系数为0.84的Cronbach alpha。研究发现,在数学项目上,性别、地点和学校类型之间存在显著的差异。调查结果强调了在高风险评估中解决DIF问题的重要性,以确保所有学生(无论其人口结构如何)获得平等机会。该研究的结论是,在开发高风险评估时,应该仔细审查,以消除可能对某些学生群体不利的潜在偏见。本研究有助于对评估有效性和公平性的持续讨论,为从业者和政策制定者提供见解,以提高高风险评估的完整性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social sciences & humanities open
Social sciences & humanities open Psychology (General), Decision Sciences (General), Social Sciences (General)
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
159 days
期刊最新文献
Inflation trajectory in Ghana from dawn to dusk a bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review Nurse workforce shortage and health system challenges in Bangladesh: A narrative review Comparative study of cultural heritage sustainability: A bibliometric analysis Mapping artificial-intelligence-driven innovation in higher education: A bibliometric review Social aspects of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven sustainability in Saudi Arabia: A systematic review with insights on labor market transformations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1