SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2

Differential Item and Differential Distractor Functioning Analyses on Turkish High School Entrance Exam

Seviye Belirleme Sınavında Değişen Madde ve Değişen Çeldirici Fonksiyonu Analizleri

Rağıp TERZİ
Levent YAKAR
Pages
136–149
Publication Date
2018-06-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Five DIF items were observed among 20 items, where three out of those five DIF items also showed DDF.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Test fairness is one of the most critical elements in creating assessments.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Given the purpose of this study, the Math section of 2011 Turkish High School Entrance Exam was investigated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Five DIF items were observed among 20 items, where three out of those five DIF items also showed DDF.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2011 · 1,000 sample
⚙️Variables:DMF · DÇF · SBS

Abstract

Test fairness is one of the most critical elements in creating assessments. Differential item functioning (DIF) and differential distractor functioning (DDF) analyses play complementary roles in justifying test fairness. This study aims to investigate the correct (i.e., DIF) and incorrect (i.e., DDF) response choices of students based on gender in a standardized high-stakes test administered in Turkey. Given the purpose of this study, the Math section of 2011 Turkish High School Entrance Exam was investigated. For DIF analyses, Mantel Haenszel and Logistic Regression methods were used. For DDF analyses, two odds ratio approaches under the two-parameter logistic-nested logit model and nominal response model were used. According to the findings, in 500 and 1,000 sample sizes, DIF was not detected, however, only a 2,000 sample size indicated significant DIF results. Five DIF items were observed among 20 items, where three out of those five DIF items also showed DDF.

Özet

Testin adil olması başarı testi hazırlamadaki vazgeçilmez unsurlardan biridir. Değişen madde fonksiyonu (DMF) ve değişen çeldirici fonksiyonu (DÇF) analizleri test adilliğini değerlendirmede birbirlerini tamamlayan rollere sahiptirler. Bu çalışma Türkiye’de yapılan geniş ölçekli bir teste katılan öğrencilerin cinsiyetlerine göre doğru ve yanlış yanıtlarını ve çeldirici seçimlerini DMF ve DÇF yöntemleri ile incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaçla 2011 yılı Seviye Belirleme Sınavı Matematik bölümü DMF ve DÇF açısından analiz edilmiştir. DMF analizleri için, Mantel-Haenszel ve Lojistik Regresyon metotları kullanılmıştır. DÇF analizleri için, iki parametreli lojistik kümelenmiş logit ve nominal yanıt modellerinin altındaki iki olasılık oranı yaklaşımları kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlara göre 500 ve 1,000 örneklem büyüklüğünde DMF bulunmazken sadece 2,000 örneklem büyüklüğünde anlamlı DMF sonuçları bulunmuştur. 20 maddelik testin beş maddesinde DMF ve bu beş maddenin üçünde de DÇF görülmüştür.

🔖

Cite This Article

TERZİ, R., YAKAR, L. (2018). Differential Item and Differential Distractor Functioning Analyses on Turkish High School Entrance Exam. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2, 136–149. https://ajindex.com/articles/137266

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Abedi, J., Leon, S., & Kao, J. (2007). Examining differential distractor functioning in reading assessments for students with disabilities. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment. Arikan, Ç. A., Uğurlu, S., & Atar, B. (2016)
  2. Mimic, Sibtest, Lojistik Regresyon ve Mantel-Haenszel Yöntemleriyle Gerçekleştirilen DMF ve Yanlılık Çalışması. Hacettepe Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 31(1): 34-52.
  3. Camilli, G. (2006). Test fairness. Educational measurement, 4, 221-256.
  4. DeMars, C. E., & Lau, A. (2011). Differential item functioning detection with latent classes: How accurately can we detect who is responding differentially? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 597–616.
  5. Doğan, N., & Öğretmen, T. (2010). Değişen Madde Fonksiyonunu Belirlemede Mantel‐Haenszel, Ki‐Kare ve Lojistik Regresyon Tekniklerinin Karşılaştırılması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 33(148), 100-112.
  6. Doornik, J.A. (2002), Object-Oriented Matrix Programming Using Ox, 3rd ed. London: Timberlake Consultants Press and Oxford: www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/Users/Doornik. Dorans, N. J., & Holland, P. W. (1993). DIF detection and description: Mantel-Haenszel and standardization. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 35–66).
  7. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Penfield, R. D. (2008). An odds ratio approach for assessing differential distractor functioning effects under the nominal response model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 45, 247–269.
  8. Gierl, M., Khaliq, S. N., Bougthon, K. (1999). Gender differential item functioning in mathematics and science: Prevalence and policy implications. Paper presented at the symposium entitled “Improviming large – scale assessment in education” at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Canada, June, 1999.
  9. Green, B. F., Crone, C. R., & Folk, V. G. (1989). A method for studying differential distractor functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 147–160.
  10. Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (2004). Construct-irrelevant variance in high-stakes testing Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23, 17–27.
  11. Hidalgo, M. D., & LÓPez-Pina, J. A. (2004). Differential item functioning detection and effect size: A comparison between logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(6), 903-915.
  12. Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1986). Differential Item Functioning and the Mantel‐Haenszel Procedure. ETS Research Report Series, 1986(2). Kan, A., Sünbü