Journals / Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 2

The Usage of Mixed Item Response Theory in Determining Item Bias

Madde Yanlılığının Belirlenmesinde Karma Madde Tepki Kuramının Kullanımı

Pages
393–405
Publication Date
2022-10-19
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)

In this context, it can be submitted that item features are favored for some groups and disadvantageous for some others

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:It is aimed in this study to identify whether the items in the Turkish subtest of the Transition from Basic Education to Secondary Education (TEOG) exam are biased.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The sample of this study consists of 5000 students who were randomly selected from among the students that took the TEOG 2015 Turkish subtest.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this context, it can be submitted that item features are favored for some groups and disadvantageous for some others
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

It is aimed in this study to identify whether the items in the Turkish subtest of the Transition from Basic Education to Secondary Education (TEOG) exam are biased. In this regard, whether the items show differential item functioning (DIF) is analyzed primarily according to the Mixed Item Response Theory (MixIRT) model and the Mantel- Haenszel (MH) method. The items that are determined to display DIF according to both methods are analyzed with regards to the subject field and cognitive level, as well as taking expert opinion on including bias. The sample of this study consists of 5000 students who were randomly selected from among the students that took the TEOG 2015 Turkish subtest. Analyses have shown that among the models based on MixIRT, the model with two latent classes is determined to fit the data best. When the items that indicate DIF according to both methods are analyzed in the DIF examination conducted based on the two latent classes that emerged according to the MixIRT, it is observed that four items that are all advantageous for the first latent group, are understanding level questions that contain the subjects of meaning in sentences and paragraphs. The other three items in favor of the second latent class were seen to be knowledge level questions measuring the Turkish grammar subject. In this context, it can be submitted that item features are favored for some groups and disadvantageous for some others

Özet

Çalışmada, Temel Eğitimden Ortaöğretime Geçiş (TEOG) sınavı Türkçe alt testi maddelerinin yanlılık gösterip göstermediğini incelemek amaçlanmıştır. Bu kapsamda, ilk olarak maddelerin farklılaşan madde fonksiyonu (FMF) olup olmadığı Karma Madde Tepki Kuramı (KMTK) modeli ve Mantel- Haenszel (MH) yöntemine göre belirlenmiştir. İki yönteme göre de FMF olan maddeler, içerik ve bilişsel düzey bakımından incelenerek yanlılık tespiti için ayrıca uzman görüşüne başvurulmuştur. Araştırmanın örneklemini, TEOG 2015 Türkçe alt testini yanıtlayan öğrencilerden seçkisiz olarak seçilen 5000’i oluşturmaktadır. Analizler sonucu, KMTK’na göre test edilen modellerden, en iyi veriye uyum sağlayan modelin, iki gizil sınıftan oluşan model olduğu görülmüştür. İki yönteme göre de FMF olarak tespit edilen yedi madde vardır. Bu maddelerin dördü ilk gizil gruba avantaj sağlarken üçü ikinci gizil gruba avantaj sağlamaktadır. İlk gizil gruba avantaj sağlayan dört madde, cümlede ve paragrafta anlam konularında, genellikle kavrama düzeyindeki maddelerdir. İkinci gruba avantaj sağlayan üç madde ise Türkçe dilbilgisi konusunda, bilgi düzeyinde maddeler olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu bağlamda, maddelerin bu gibi özelliklerinin bazı gruplara avantaj sağlarken bazılarında dezavantaja neden olduğu öne sürülebilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

YALÇIN, S. (2022). The Usage of Mixed Item Response Theory in Determining Item Bias. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 2, 393–405. https://ajindex.com/articles/531490

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (5)

  1. Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. A. (1994). MMSS: Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Chaimongkol, S., Huffer, F. W. & Kamata, A. (2007). An explanatory differential item functioning (DIF) model by the WinBUGS 1.4. Songklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology, 29, 449–458.
  2. Choi, Y., Alexeev, N., & Cohen, A. S. (2015). Differential item functioning analysis using a mixture 3-parameter logistic model with a covariate on the TIMSS 2007 mathematics test. International Journal of Testing, 15(3), 239-253. doi: 10.1080/15305058.2015.1007241. Clauser, B. E., & Mazor, K. M. (1998). Using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning test items. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(1), 31-44. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1998.tb00619.x Cohen, A. S., & Bolt, D. M. (2005). A mixture model analysis of differential item functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 42(2), 133–148. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.2005.00007. Çokluk, Ö. S., Şekercioğlu, G. & Büyüköztürk, S. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve lisrel uygulamaları. Ankara:
  3. Pegem Akademi. De Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  4. De Ayala, R. J., Kim, S. H., Stapleton, L. M., & Dayton, C. M. (2002). Differential item functioning: A mixture distribution conceptualization. International Journal of Testing, 2(3&4), 243-276. doi: 10.1080/15305058.2002.9669495. De Mars, 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(4), 597–616. doi: 10.1177/0013164411404221. Dorans, N. J., & Holland, P. W. (1993). DIF detection and description: Mantel haenszel and standardization. In P. W. Holland, and H. Wainer, (Eds.), Differential item functioning (p. 35–66), New Jersey: USA. Finch, W. H. & French, B. F. (2012). Parameter estimation with mixture item response theory models: A monte carlo comparison of maximum likelihood and bayesian methods. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 11(1), 167-178. doi: 10.22237/jmasm/1335845580. Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the mantel-haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer, and H. I. Brown (Eds.), Test validity (p. 129-145).
  5. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kelderma