SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 3

Detecting Differential Item Functioning Using SIBTEST, MH, LR and IRT Methods

Hülya KELECİOĞLU
Zafer ÇEPNİ
Pages
267–285
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)

According to DBF analyses, the operations item group favored females and the word problems item group favored males.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, differential item functioning (DIF) and differential bundle functioning (DBF) analyses of the Academic Staff and Postgraduate Education Entrance Examination Quantitative Ability Tests were carried out.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Mantel-Haenszel, logistic regression, SIBTEST, Item Response Theory-Likelihood Ratio and BILOG-MG DIF Algorithm methods were used for DIF analyses.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to DBF analyses, the operations item group favored females and the word problems item group favored males.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:DIF · DBF · SIBTEST

Abstract

In this study, differential item functioning (DIF) and differential bundle functioning (DBF) analyses of the Academic Staff and Postgraduate Education Entrance Examination Quantitative Ability Tests were carried out. Mantel-Haenszel, logistic regression, SIBTEST, Item Response Theory-Likelihood Ratio and BILOG-MG DIF Algorithm methods were used for DIF analyses. SIBTEST was the method used for DBF analyses. Data sets for the study came from an earlier application of the examination. Gender DIF analyses showed that eleven items showed DIF. Four of the items favored male applicants, where seven of them favored female applicants. In order to investigate the sources of DIF, we consulted experts. In general, the items which could be solved using routine algorithmic operations and which are presented in the algebraic, abstract format showed DIF in favor of females. The “real-life” word problems favored males. According to DBF analyses, the operations item group favored females and the word problems item group favored males.

🔖

Cite This Article

KELECİOĞLU, H., ÇEPNİ, Z. (2022). Detecting Differential Item Functioning Using SIBTEST, MH, LR and IRT Methods. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 3, 267–285. https://ajindex.com/articles/497162

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Ackerman, T. A. (1992). A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact, and item validity from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29(1), 67-91. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Asil, M. (2010). Uluslararası Öğrenci Değerlendirme Programı (PISA) 2006 öğrenci anketinin kültürler arası eşdeğerliğinin incelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi,
  2. Ankara.
  3. Bakan Kalaycıoğlu, D., & Berberoğlu, G. (2010). Differential item functioning Analysis of the science and mathematics items in the university entrance examinations in Turkey. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 20(5), 1-12.
  4. Bakan Kalaycıoğlu, D., & Kelecioğlu, H. (2011). Öğrenci Seçme Sınavı’nın madde yanlılığı açısından incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(161), 3-13.
  5. Camilli, G. (2006). Test fairness. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 221-256). Westport: American Council on Education & Praeger Publishers.
  6. Clauser, B. E., & Mazor, K. M. (1998). Using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning test items. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(1), 31-47.
  7. Cohen, A., & Ibarra, R. A. (2005). Examining gender-related differential item funtioning using insights from psychometric and multicontext theory. In A. M. Gallagher ve J. C. Kaufman (eds.). Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach ( pp. 143-171). Cambridge: NY. Doğan, N., & Öğretmen, T. (2008). Değişen madde fonksiyonunu belirlemede Mantel-Haenszel, ki-kare ve lojistik regresyon tekniklerinin karşılaştırılması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 33(148), 100-112.
  8. Doolittle, A. E., & Cleary, T. A. (1987). Gender-based differential item performance in mathematics achievement items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24(2), 157-166. du Toit, M. (Ed.). (2003). IRT from SSI: BILOG¬MG, MULTILOG, PARSCALE, TESTFACT. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc. Ercikan, K. (1998). Translation effects in international assessments. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 543-553.
  9. Educational Testing Service. (2007). The GRE® Analytical Writing Measure: An asset in admissions decisions. Downloaded from www.ets.org/Media/Tests/GRE/pdf/gre_aw_an_asset.pdf Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. (1977). Sex-related differences i