SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitim ve Bilim / 2012 / Cilt: 37 - Sayı: 166

Cross-cultural equivalence of the pısa student questionnaire

Pısa öğrenci anketinin kültürler arası eşdeğerliği

Selahattin GELBAL
Mustafa ASİL
Pages
236–249
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

CFA results showed that the measurement model had the same factor structure across samples.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, cross-lingual and cross-cultural equivalence of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2006 Student Questionnaire was assessed comparatively across Turkey, the United States of America, Australia, and New Zealand samples.
📊
Key Findings & Data:At the second stage, Multi-Group Confirmatory Factor Analyses (MG-CFA) based on Mean and Covariance Structures (MACS; Sörbom, 1974) were conducted in order to determine whether the questionnaire items exhibit differential item functioning (DIF) across different cultures or languages.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:CFA results showed that the measurement model had the same factor structure across samples.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2006 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this study, cross-lingual and cross-cultural equivalence of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2006 Student Questionnaire was assessed comparatively across Turkey, the United States of America, Australia, and New Zealand samples. At the first stage of this study, the factor structure of the questionnaire constructs was examined using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). At the second stage, Multi-Group Confirmatory Factor Analyses (MG-CFA) based on Mean and Covariance Structures (MACS; Sörbom, 1974) were conducted in order to determine whether the questionnaire items exhibit differential item functioning (DIF) across different cultures or languages. At the last stage, causes of DIF were identified by expert judgments. CFA results showed that the measurement model had the same factor structure across samples. MG-CFA results indicated that some items exhibited DIF between countries. It is observed that as the linguistic and cultural differences increased between countries, the number of DIF items increased. The main reasons for DIF were found to be due to poor translation and differences in cultural relevance.

Özet

Bu araştırmada Uluslararası Öğrenci Değerlendirme Programı (PISA) 2006 kapsamında uygulanan öğrenci anketinin kültürler ve diller arası eşdeğerliği, Avustralya, Yeni Zelanda, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri ve Türkiye örneklemleri üzerinde karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmiştir. Araştırmanın birinci aşamasında, öğrenci anketinin faktör yapısı Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) yöntemiyle incelenmiştir. İkinci aşamada ise, Ortalama ve Kovaryans Yapıları (OKY; Sörbom, 1974) metoduna dayanan Çoklu Grup Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (ÇG-DFA) kullanılarak anket maddelerinin farklı kültürler ve diller arasında Değişen Madde Fonksiyonu (DMF) gösterip göstermediği araştırılmıştır. Son aşamada, uzman görüşlerine başvurularak, maddelerin DMF göstermesinin nedenleri belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır. DFA sonuçları ölçme modelinin tüm örneklemlerde aynı faktör yapısına sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. ÇG-DFA bulguları ülkeler arasında değişen fonksiyon gösteren maddelerin olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Ülkeler arasında dilsel ve kültürel farklılıklar arttıkça DMF gösteren maddelerin sayısının da arttığı gözlenmiştir. Maddelerin DMF göstermesinin asıl nedenlerinin çeviri problemleri ve kültürel farklılıklar olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

GELBAL, S., ASİL, M. (2022). Cross-cultural equivalence of the pısa student questionnaire. Eğitim ve Bilim, Cilt: 37 - Sayı: 166, 236–249. https://ajindex.com/articles/497938

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Allalouf, A., Hambleton, R., & Sireci, S. (1999). Identifying the Causes of DIF in Translated Verbal Items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 185-198. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York: The Guilford Press.
  2. Byrne, B. M. (2008). Testing for Multigroup Equivalence of a Measuring Instrument: A Walk Through the Process. Psicothema, 20 (4), 872-882.
  3. Byrne, B. M., & Stewart, S. M. (2006). The MACS Approach to Testing for Multigroup Invariance of a Second-Order Structure: A Walk Through the Process. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(2), 287-321.
  4. Chan, D. (2000). Detection of Differential Item Functioning on the Kirton Adaptation-Innovation Inventory Using Multiple-Group Mean and Covariance Structure Analyses. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 169-199.
  5. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1999). Testing Factorial Invariance Across Groups: A Reconceptualization and Proposed New Method. Journal of Management, 25, 1-7.
  6. De Klerk, G. (2008).
  7. Cross Cultural Testing. In M. Bron, C.D. Foxcroft & R. Butter (Eds.), Online Readings in Testing and Assessment, International Test Commission, http://www.intestcom.org/ Publications/ORTA.php Drasgow, F., & Kanfer, R. (1985). Equivalence of Psychological Measurement in Heterogeneous Populations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(4), 662-680.
  8. Ercikan, K. (1998). Translation Effects in International Assessments. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 543-553.
  9. Ercikan, K. (2002). Disentangling the Sources of Differential Item Functioning in Multilingual Assessments. International Journal of Testing, 2 (3&4), 199-215.
  10. Ercikan, K., Gierl, M. J., McCreith, T., Puhan, G., & Koh, K. (2004). Comparability of Bilingual Versions of Assessments: Sources of Incomparability of English and French Versions of Canada’s National Achievement Tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 17(3), 301-321.
  11. Ercikan, K., & Koh, K. (2005). Examining the Construct Comparability of the English and French Versions of TIMSS. International Journal of Testing, 5(1), 23-35.
  12. Gierl, M. J. (2000). Construct Equivalence on Translated Achievement Tests. Canadian Journal of Education, 25(4), 280-296.
  13. Gierl, M., J., & Khaliq, S., N. (2001). Identifying Sources of Differe