Pub Date : 2022-03-06DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2022.2043151
Allison J. LaFave, Josephine Taylor, Amelia M. Barter, Arielle Jacobs
ABSTRACT This systematic review examines empirical research about students’ motivation for NAEP in grades 4, 8, and 12 using multiple motivation constructs, including effort, value, and expectancy. Analyses yielded several findings. First, there are stark differences in the perceived importance of doing well on NAEP among students in grades 4 (86%), 8 (59%), and 12 (35%). Second, meta-analyses of descriptive data on the percentage of students who agreed with various expectancy statements (e.g., “I am good at mathematics”) revealed minimal variations across grade level. However, similar meta-analyses of data on the percentage of students who agreed with various value statements (e.g., “I like mathematics”) exposed notable variation across grade levels. Third, domain-specific motivation has a positive, statistically significant relationship with NAEP achievement. Finally, some interventions – particularly financial incentives – may have a modest, positive effect on NAEP achievement.
{"title":"Student Engagement on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Extant Research","authors":"Allison J. LaFave, Josephine Taylor, Amelia M. Barter, Arielle Jacobs","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2022.2043151","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2022.2043151","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This systematic review examines empirical research about students’ motivation for NAEP in grades 4, 8, and 12 using multiple motivation constructs, including effort, value, and expectancy. Analyses yielded several findings. First, there are stark differences in the perceived importance of doing well on NAEP among students in grades 4 (86%), 8 (59%), and 12 (35%). Second, meta-analyses of descriptive data on the percentage of students who agreed with various expectancy statements (e.g., “I am good at mathematics”) revealed minimal variations across grade level. However, similar meta-analyses of data on the percentage of students who agreed with various value statements (e.g., “I like mathematics”) exposed notable variation across grade levels. Third, domain-specific motivation has a positive, statistically significant relationship with NAEP achievement. Finally, some interventions – particularly financial incentives – may have a modest, positive effect on NAEP achievement.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":"27 1","pages":"205 - 228"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45663142","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-02DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2022.2043742
david. rutkowski, Leslie Rutkowski, C. Flores
ABSTRACT As more states move to universal computer-based assessments, an emergent issue concerns the effect that device type might have on student results. Although, several research studies have explored device effects, most of these studies focused on the differences between tablets and desktops/laptops. In the current study, we distinguish between different types of devices to better examine the differences. Specifically, we used Indiana state assessment results from grades 3 and 8 and a propensity score weighting method to see if a student took the assessment on another device, would they have received the same score? Our findings suggest that there are significant differences by device type in both grades. In particular, iPad and Chromebook devices produced higher achievement when compared to Mac and PC devices. At the extreme, these differences amounted to close to a third of a standard deviation on the achievement scale.
{"title":"The Effect of Device Type on Achievement: Evidence from a Quasi-Experimental Design","authors":"david. rutkowski, Leslie Rutkowski, C. Flores","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2022.2043742","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2022.2043742","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT As more states move to universal computer-based assessments, an emergent issue concerns the effect that device type might have on student results. Although, several research studies have explored device effects, most of these studies focused on the differences between tablets and desktops/laptops. In the current study, we distinguish between different types of devices to better examine the differences. Specifically, we used Indiana state assessment results from grades 3 and 8 and a propensity score weighting method to see if a student took the assessment on another device, would they have received the same score? Our findings suggest that there are significant differences by device type in both grades. In particular, iPad and Chromebook devices produced higher achievement when compared to Mac and PC devices. At the extreme, these differences amounted to close to a third of a standard deviation on the achievement scale.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":"27 1","pages":"229 - 246"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43376651","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-17DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2022.2042682
Jennifer Randall, David Slomp, Mya Poe, M. Oliveri
ABSTRACT In this article, we propose a justice-oriented, antiracist validity framework designed to disrupt assessment practices that continue to (re)produce racism through the uncritical promotion of white supremist hegemonic practices. Using anti-Blackness as illustration, we highlight the ways in which racism is introduced, or ignored, in current assessment and validation processes and how an antiracist approach can be enacted. To start our description of the framework, we outline the foundational theories and practices (e.g., critical race theory & antiracist assessment) and justice-based framings, which serve as the base for our framework. We then focus on Kane’s interpretive use argument and Mislevy’s sociocognitive approach and suggest extending them to include an antiracist perspective. To this end, we propose a set of heuristics organized around a validity argument that holds justice-oriented, antiracist theories and practices at its core.
{"title":"Disrupting White Supremacy in Assessment: Toward a Justice-Oriented, Antiracist Validity Framework","authors":"Jennifer Randall, David Slomp, Mya Poe, M. Oliveri","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2022.2042682","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2022.2042682","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this article, we propose a justice-oriented, antiracist validity framework designed to disrupt assessment practices that continue to (re)produce racism through the uncritical promotion of white supremist hegemonic practices. Using anti-Blackness as illustration, we highlight the ways in which racism is introduced, or ignored, in current assessment and validation processes and how an antiracist approach can be enacted. To start our description of the framework, we outline the foundational theories and practices (e.g., critical race theory & antiracist assessment) and justice-based framings, which serve as the base for our framework. We then focus on Kane’s interpretive use argument and Mislevy’s sociocognitive approach and suggest extending them to include an antiracist perspective. To this end, we propose a set of heuristics organized around a validity argument that holds justice-oriented, antiracist theories and practices at its core.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":"29 1","pages":"170 - 178"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59626287","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2022.2028139
Scott E. Grapin, Lorena Llosa
ABSTRACT Traditionally, content assessments have been carried out through written language. However, the latest standards in U.S. K-12 education expect all students, including English learners (ELs), to demonstrate their content learning using multiple modalities. This study examined the performance of fifth-grade students at varying levels of English proficiency on four science tasks that elicited responses in visual, written, and oral modalities. Findings revealed that approximately half of students performed differently in visual versus written modalities on each task. However, performance did not consistently favor the visual modality for ELs, likely due to challenges related to visual representation in some areas of science. Additionally, triangulating students’ visual and written responses with their oral responses yielded more accurate interpretations of their science understanding. Collectively, these findings indicate the potential of multimodal assessment for providing more complete and accurate information about what ELs and their peers know and can do in the content areas.
{"title":"Multimodal Tasks to Assess English Learners and Their Peers in Science","authors":"Scott E. Grapin, Lorena Llosa","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2022.2028139","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2022.2028139","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Traditionally, content assessments have been carried out through written language. However, the latest standards in U.S. K-12 education expect all students, including English learners (ELs), to demonstrate their content learning using multiple modalities. This study examined the performance of fifth-grade students at varying levels of English proficiency on four science tasks that elicited responses in visual, written, and oral modalities. Findings revealed that approximately half of students performed differently in visual versus written modalities on each task. However, performance did not consistently favor the visual modality for ELs, likely due to challenges related to visual representation in some areas of science. Additionally, triangulating students’ visual and written responses with their oral responses yielded more accurate interpretations of their science understanding. Collectively, these findings indicate the potential of multimodal assessment for providing more complete and accurate information about what ELs and their peers know and can do in the content areas.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":"27 1","pages":"46 - 70"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48582048","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2022.2027753
Diana Pereira, I. Cadime, M. Flores, C. Pinheiro, Patrícia Santos
ABSTRACT This study focuses on the effect of the programme variable on the purposes and effects that students associate with assessment, on the assessment methods used and on the perceived use of assessment. Data were collected in five Portuguese Public Universities through a survey (n = 4144) and focus group (n = 250) with students enrolled in different programmes. Findings point to statistically significant differences in relation to the purpose of assessment, assessment methods most used and perceived use of assessment. The main differences were found in the kinds of methods used in different programmes: Law reported the lowest frequency of the use of collective assessment methods and portfolios, whereas Psychology, Mechanical and Industrial Engineering were the programmes that reported the lowest frequency of use of individual methods. Educational sciences reported more frequency of all types of methods and reported significantly more preference for the use of alternative methods than the remaining programmes. Negative emotions were most associated with assessment by Nursing students and Educational Sciences’ students reported more participation in the assessment process than students from all other programmes. Implications of the findings are discussed.
{"title":"Investigating the Effect of the Programme of Study on University Students’ Perceptions about Assessment","authors":"Diana Pereira, I. Cadime, M. Flores, C. Pinheiro, Patrícia Santos","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2022.2027753","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2022.2027753","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study focuses on the effect of the programme variable on the purposes and effects that students associate with assessment, on the assessment methods used and on the perceived use of assessment. Data were collected in five Portuguese Public Universities through a survey (n = 4144) and focus group (n = 250) with students enrolled in different programmes. Findings point to statistically significant differences in relation to the purpose of assessment, assessment methods most used and perceived use of assessment. The main differences were found in the kinds of methods used in different programmes: Law reported the lowest frequency of the use of collective assessment methods and portfolios, whereas Psychology, Mechanical and Industrial Engineering were the programmes that reported the lowest frequency of use of individual methods. Educational sciences reported more frequency of all types of methods and reported significantly more preference for the use of alternative methods than the remaining programmes. Negative emotions were most associated with assessment by Nursing students and Educational Sciences’ students reported more participation in the assessment process than students from all other programmes. Implications of the findings are discussed.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":"27 1","pages":"71 - 92"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48672623","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-29DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2021.2016388
Francis O’Donnell, S. Sireci
ABSTRACT Since the standards-based assessment practices required by the No Child Left Behind legislation, almost all students in the United States are “labeled” according to their performance on educational achievement tests. In spite of their widespread use in reporting test results, research on how achievement level labels are perceived by teachers, parents, and students is minimal. In this study, we surveyed teachers (N = 51) and parents (N = 50) regarding their perceptions of 73 achievement labels (e.g., inadequate, level 2, proficient) used in statewide testing programs. These teachers and parents also sorted the labels according to their similarity. Using multidimensional scaling, we found labels used to denote the same level of performance (e.g., basic and below proficient) were perceived to differ in important ways, including in their tone and how much achievement they convey. Additionally, some labels were perceived as more encouraging or clear than others. Teachers’ and parents’ perceptions were similar, with a few exceptions. The results have important implications for reporting results that encourage, rather than discourage, student learning.
摘要:由于《不让一个孩子掉队法》(No Child Left Behind)所要求的基于标准的评估实践，美国几乎所有学生都根据他们在教育成就测试中的表现被“贴上标签”。尽管成绩等级标签广泛用于报告测试结果，但关于教师、家长和学生如何看待成绩等级标签的研究却很少。在这项研究中，我们调查了教师(N = 51)和家长(N = 50)对全州测试项目中使用的73个成就标签(例如，不足，2级，熟练)的看法。这些老师和家长还根据他们的相似度对标签进行分类。使用多维尺度，我们发现用于表示相同表现水平的标签(例如，基本和精通以下)在重要方面被认为是不同的，包括他们的语气和他们传达了多少成就。此外，一些标签被认为比其他标签更令人鼓舞或更清晰。除了少数例外，老师和家长的看法是相似的。这些结果对于报告鼓励而不是阻碍学生学习的结果具有重要意义。
{"title":"Language Matters: Teacher and Parent Perceptions of Achievement Labels from Educational Tests","authors":"Francis O’Donnell, S. Sireci","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2021.2016388","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2021.2016388","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Since the standards-based assessment practices required by the No Child Left Behind legislation, almost all students in the United States are “labeled” according to their performance on educational achievement tests. In spite of their widespread use in reporting test results, research on how achievement level labels are perceived by teachers, parents, and students is minimal. In this study, we surveyed teachers (N = 51) and parents (N = 50) regarding their perceptions of 73 achievement labels (e.g., inadequate, level 2, proficient) used in statewide testing programs. These teachers and parents also sorted the labels according to their similarity. Using multidimensional scaling, we found labels used to denote the same level of performance (e.g., basic and below proficient) were perceived to differ in important ways, including in their tone and how much achievement they convey. Additionally, some labels were perceived as more encouraging or clear than others. Teachers’ and parents’ perceptions were similar, with a few exceptions. The results have important implications for reporting results that encourage, rather than discourage, student learning.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":"27 1","pages":"1 - 26"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46569614","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-29DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2021.1982693
M. Wolf, Hanwook Yoo, Danielle Guzman-Orth, J. Abedi
ABSTRACT Implementing a randomized controlled trial design, the present study investigated the effects of two types of accommodations, linguistic modification and a glossary, for English learners (ELs) taking a computer-based mathematics assessment. Process data including response time and clicks on glossary words were also examined to better interpret students’ interaction with the accommodations in the testing conditions. Regression and ANOVA analyses were performed with data from 513 students (189 ELs and 324 non-ELs) in Grade 9. No statistically significant accommodation effects were detected in this study. Process data revealed possible explanations (i.e., student engagement and glossary usage) for the nonsignificant results. Implications for future research on test accommodations for EL students are discussed.
{"title":"Investigating the Effects of Test Accommodations with Process Data for English Learners in a Mathematics Assessment","authors":"M. Wolf, Hanwook Yoo, Danielle Guzman-Orth, J. Abedi","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2021.1982693","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2021.1982693","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Implementing a randomized controlled trial design, the present study investigated the effects of two types of accommodations, linguistic modification and a glossary, for English learners (ELs) taking a computer-based mathematics assessment. Process data including response time and clicks on glossary words were also examined to better interpret students’ interaction with the accommodations in the testing conditions. Regression and ANOVA analyses were performed with data from 513 students (189 ELs and 324 non-ELs) in Grade 9. No statistically significant accommodation effects were detected in this study. Process data revealed possible explanations (i.e., student engagement and glossary usage) for the nonsignificant results. Implications for future research on test accommodations for EL students are discussed.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":"27 1","pages":"27 - 45"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45298505","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-05DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2021.1971966
Leonora Kaldaras, Hope O. Akaeze, J. Krajcik
ABSTRACT Deep science understanding is reflected in students’ ability to use content and skills when making sense of the world. Assessing deep understanding requires measuring complex constructs that combine elements of content and skills. To develop valid measures of complex constructs, we need to understand how their theoretical dimensionality, reflected in the integration of content and skills, is manifested in practice. This work is developed in the context of the Framework for K-12 Science Education and Next-Generation Science Standards (NGSS). We introduce a methodology that describes steps for creating a theoretical validity argument for measuring complex NGSS constructs, designing operational assessments based on this argument, and obtaining empirical evidence for the validity of the argument and assessments, focusing on how theoretically suggested dimensionality of NGSS constructs is manifested in practice. Results have implications for developing valid NGSS assessments and reporting student progress on high-stakes and diagnostic evaluation.
{"title":"A Methodology for Determining and Validating Latent Factor Dimensionality of Complex Multi-Factor Science Constructs Measuring Knowledge-In-Use","authors":"Leonora Kaldaras, Hope O. Akaeze, J. Krajcik","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2021.1971966","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2021.1971966","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Deep science understanding is reflected in students’ ability to use content and skills when making sense of the world. Assessing deep understanding requires measuring complex constructs that combine elements of content and skills. To develop valid measures of complex constructs, we need to understand how their theoretical dimensionality, reflected in the integration of content and skills, is manifested in practice. This work is developed in the context of the Framework for K-12 Science Education and Next-Generation Science Standards (NGSS). We introduce a methodology that describes steps for creating a theoretical validity argument for measuring complex NGSS constructs, designing operational assessments based on this argument, and obtaining empirical evidence for the validity of the argument and assessments, focusing on how theoretically suggested dimensionality of NGSS constructs is manifested in practice. Results have implications for developing valid NGSS assessments and reporting student progress on high-stakes and diagnostic evaluation.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":"26 1","pages":"241 - 263"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45735723","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-01DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2021.1966299
Jesse R. Sparks, P. V. van Rijn, P. Deane
ABSTRACT Effectively evaluating the credibility and accuracy of multiple sources is critical for college readiness. We developed 24 source evaluation tasks spanning four predicted difficulty levels of a hypothesized learning progression (LP) and piloted these tasks to evaluate the utility of an LP-based approach to designing formative literacy assessments. Sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students (N = 360, 120 per grade) completed 12 of the 24 tasks in an online testing session. Analyses examined the tasks’ reliability and validity and whether patterns of performance aligned to predicted LP levels (i.e., recovery of the LP) using task progression maps derived from item response theory (IRT). Results suggested that the LP tasks were reliable and correlated with external measures; however, some lower level tasks proved unexpectedly difficult. Possible explanations for low performance are discussed, followed by implications for future LP and task revisions. This work provides a model for designing and evaluating LP-based literacy assessments.
{"title":"Assessing Source Evaluation Skills of Middle School Students Using Learning Progressions","authors":"Jesse R. Sparks, P. V. van Rijn, P. Deane","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2021.1966299","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2021.1966299","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Effectively evaluating the credibility and accuracy of multiple sources is critical for college readiness. We developed 24 source evaluation tasks spanning four predicted difficulty levels of a hypothesized learning progression (LP) and piloted these tasks to evaluate the utility of an LP-based approach to designing formative literacy assessments. Sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students (N = 360, 120 per grade) completed 12 of the 24 tasks in an online testing session. Analyses examined the tasks’ reliability and validity and whether patterns of performance aligned to predicted LP levels (i.e., recovery of the LP) using task progression maps derived from item response theory (IRT). Results suggested that the LP tasks were reliable and correlated with external measures; however, some lower level tasks proved unexpectedly difficult. Possible explanations for low performance are discussed, followed by implications for future LP and task revisions. This work provides a model for designing and evaluating LP-based literacy assessments.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":"26 1","pages":"213 - 240"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41628487","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-22DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2021.1965473
M. Russell, Olivia Szendey, Larry Kaplan
ABSTRACT Differential Item Function (DIF) analysis is commonly employed to examine potential bias produced by a test item. Since its introduction DIF analyses have focused on potential bias related to broad categories of oppression, including gender, racial stratification, economic class, and ableness. More recently, efforts to examine the effects of oppression on valued life-outcomes have employed an intersectional approach to more fully represent a person’s identity and capture the multiple, and often compound, impacts of oppression. The study presented here replicated an intersectional approach to DIF analyses to examine whether findings from a previous study that focused on a single grade-level achievement test generalized to other subject areas and grade levels. Findings indicate that the use of an intersectional approach is more sensitive to detecting potential item bias and that this increased sensitivity holds across the subject areas and grade levels examined.
{"title":"An Intersectional Approach to DIF: Do Initial Findings Hold across Tests?","authors":"M. Russell, Olivia Szendey, Larry Kaplan","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2021.1965473","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2021.1965473","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Differential Item Function (DIF) analysis is commonly employed to examine potential bias produced by a test item. Since its introduction DIF analyses have focused on potential bias related to broad categories of oppression, including gender, racial stratification, economic class, and ableness. More recently, efforts to examine the effects of oppression on valued life-outcomes have employed an intersectional approach to more fully represent a person’s identity and capture the multiple, and often compound, impacts of oppression. The study presented here replicated an intersectional approach to DIF analyses to examine whether findings from a previous study that focused on a single grade-level achievement test generalized to other subject areas and grade levels. Findings indicate that the use of an intersectional approach is more sensitive to detecting potential item bias and that this increased sensitivity holds across the subject areas and grade levels examined.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":"26 1","pages":"284 - 298"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42202501","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：