Journals / Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 1

Gender-based Differential Item Functioning Analysis of the Medical Specialization Education Entrance Examination

Pages
1–14
Publication Date
2022-10-12
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)

The medical specialty preferences of the physicians and content area of the displaying differential item functioning items overlapped.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The Medical Specialization Education Entrance Examination is a national high-stake test for the placement of medical graduates in medical specialization training in Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The analyzes were conducted on the answers of 11,530 physicians to the Basic Medical Sciences and Clinical Medical Sciences tests of the 2017 Medical Specialization Education Entrance Examination spring term.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The medical specialty preferences of the physicians and content area of the displaying differential item functioning items overlapped.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:medical specialization education entrance examination · residency · differential item functioning

Abstract

The Medical Specialization Education Entrance Examination is a national high-stake test for the placement of medical graduates in medical specialization training in Turkey. The purpose of this study is to determine whether the Medical Specialization Education Entrance Examination items display gender-related differential item functioning (DIF) by using Mantel-Haenszel and logistic regression methods. To determine the presence of item bias, content experts reviewed items. The analyzes were conducted on the answers of 11,530 physicians to the Basic Medical Sciences and Clinical Medical Sciences tests of the 2017 Medical Specialization Education Entrance Examination spring term. According to the Mantel-Haenszel method, there were eleven out of 234 items identified as showing B level gender-related DIF. While six of the items functioned in favor of male physicians, five of them were in favor of female physicians. Since the number of items in favor of each gender is close, DIF cancellation occurs. According to content areas, one histology and embryology, one internal medicine, and three gynecology and obstetrics items were in favor of female physicians, one physiology, two medical pharmacology, one pediatrics, and two surgical items were in favor of male physicians. To the experts’ reviews, there are no biased items. The medical specialty preferences of the physicians and content area of the displaying differential item functioning items overlapped.

🔖

Cite This Article

KALAYCIOĞLU, D. B. (2022). Gender-based Differential Item Functioning Analysis of the Medical Specialization Education Entrance Examination. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 1, 1–14. https://ajindex.com/articles/497140

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Akcan, R., & Atalay Kabasakal, K. (2019). An investigation of item bias of English test: The case of 2016 year undergraduate placement exam in Turkey. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 6(1), 48-62. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.508581
  2. Allaouf, A., Hambleton, R., & Sireci, S. (1999). Identifying the causes of translation DIF on verbal items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36(3), 185-198. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1435153 American Educational Research Association. (2018). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association. Assessment, Selection and Placement Center [Ölçme Seçme ve Yerleştirme Merkezi, ÖSYM]. (2017). 2017 Tıpta Uzmanlık Eğitimi Giriş Sınavı başvuru kılavuzu. Retrieved from: https://dokuman.osym.gov.tr/pdfdokuman/2017/TUSILKBAHAR/BASVURUKILAVUZU26042017.pdf
  3. Bakan Kalaycıoğlu, D. (2020). Changes in physicians’ specalization preferences from 1987 to 2017. Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası, 19(59), 157-170. https://doi.org/10.25282/ted.696179
  4. Bakan Kalaycıoğlu, D., & Berberoğlu, G. (2011). Differential item functioning analysis of the science and mathematics items in the university entrance examinations in Turkey. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(5), 467-478. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0734282910391623 Berrío, Á. I., Gomez-Benito, J., & Arias-Patiño, E. M. (2020). Developments and trends in research on methods of detecting differential item functioning. Educational Research Review, 31, 100340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100340
  5. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162).
  6. Sage. Camilli, G., & Shepard, L.A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Sage Publications. Clauser, B. E., Nungester, R. J., Mazor, K., & Ripkey, D. (1996a). A comparison of alternative matching strategies for DIF detection in tests that are multidimensional. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33(2), 202-214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1996.tb00489.x
  7. Clauser, B. E., Nungester, R. J., & Swaminathan, H. (1996b). Improving the matching for DIF analysis by conditioning on both test score and an educational background variable. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33(4), 453-464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1996.tb00501.x
  8. Crane, P. K., Belle, G. van, & Larson, E. B. (2004). Test bias in a cognitive test: Differential item functioning in the CASI. Statistic