Examining Differential Distractor Functioning in Reading Assessments for Students with Disabilities. CRESST Report 743.

J. Abedi, Seth Leon, Jenny C. Kao
{"title":"Examining Differential Distractor Functioning in Reading Assessments for Students with Disabilities. CRESST Report 743.","authors":"J. Abedi, Seth Leon, Jenny C. Kao","doi":"10.1037/e642962011-001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study examines the incorrect response choices, or distractors, by students with disabilities in standardized reading assessments. Differential distractor functioning (DDF) analysis differs from differential item functioning (DIF) analysis, which treats all answers alike and examines all wrong answers against the correct answer. DDF analysis in contrast examines only the incorrect answers. If different groups, such as students with disabilities and students without disabilities, selected different incorrect responses to an item, then the item could mean something different to the different groups. Our study results found items showing DDF for students with disabilities in Grade 9, but not for Grade 3. Results also suggest that items showing DDF were more likely to be located in the second half of the assessments rather than the first half of the assessments. Additionally, results suggest that in items showing DDF, students with disabilities were less likely to choose the most common distractor than students without disabilities. Results of this study can shed light on potential factors affecting the accessibility of reading assessments for students with disabilities, in an ultimate effort to provide assessment tools that are conceptually and psychometrically sound for all students. A companion report is available examining differential item functioning for students with disabilities.","PeriodicalId":19116,"journal":{"name":"National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"26","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/e642962011-001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26

Abstract

This study examines the incorrect response choices, or distractors, by students with disabilities in standardized reading assessments. Differential distractor functioning (DDF) analysis differs from differential item functioning (DIF) analysis, which treats all answers alike and examines all wrong answers against the correct answer. DDF analysis in contrast examines only the incorrect answers. If different groups, such as students with disabilities and students without disabilities, selected different incorrect responses to an item, then the item could mean something different to the different groups. Our study results found items showing DDF for students with disabilities in Grade 9, but not for Grade 3. Results also suggest that items showing DDF were more likely to be located in the second half of the assessments rather than the first half of the assessments. Additionally, results suggest that in items showing DDF, students with disabilities were less likely to choose the most common distractor than students without disabilities. Results of this study can shed light on potential factors affecting the accessibility of reading assessments for students with disabilities, in an ultimate effort to provide assessment tools that are conceptually and psychometrically sound for all students. A companion report is available examining differential item functioning for students with disabilities.
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
残疾学生阅读评估中差异分心功能的研究。报告743。
本研究考察了残疾学生在标准化阅读评估中的错误反应选择或干扰因素。差异干扰功能(DDF)分析不同于差异项目功能(DIF)分析,后者对所有答案一视同仁,并根据正确答案检查所有错误答案。相反,DDF分析只检查不正确的答案。如果不同的组,如残疾学生和非残疾学生,对一个项目选择了不同的错误回答,那么这个项目对不同的组来说可能意味着不同的东西。我们的研究结果发现,九年级的残疾学生显示了DDF,而三年级的残疾学生没有。结果还表明,显示DDF的项目更有可能位于评估的后半部分,而不是前半部分。此外,结果表明,在显示DDF的项目中,残疾学生比非残疾学生更不可能选择最常见的分心物。本研究的结果可以揭示影响残疾学生阅读评估可及性的潜在因素,最终努力为所有学生提供概念上和心理测量上健全的评估工具。还有一份配套报告,检查残疾学生的不同项目功能。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Aligning Instruction and Assessment with Game and Simulation Design. CRESST Report 780. Evaluation of Seeds of Science/Roots of Reading: Effective Tools for Developing Literacy through Science in the Early Grades-Light Energy Unit. CRESST Report 781. Accessible Reading Assessments for Students with Disabilities: The Role of Cognitive, Grammatical, Lexical, and Textual/Visual Features. CRESST Report 785. Preparing Students for the 21st Century: Exploring the Effect of Afterschool Participation on Students' Collaboration Skills, Oral Communication Skills, and Self-Efficacy. CRESST Report 777. What Works? Common Practices in High Functioning Afterschool Programs across the Nation in Math, Reading, Science, Arts, Technology, and Homework--A Study by the National Partnership. The Afterschool Program Assessment Guide. CRESST Report 768.
×
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:481959085
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