SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kastamonu Üniversitesi Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 1

Investigation of items in pisa 2009 student questionnaire subscales (q32-q33) in terms of differential item functioning

Pısa 2009 öğrenci anketi alt ölçeklerinde (q32-q33) bulunan maddelerin değişen madde fonksiyonu açısından incelenmesi

İbrahim Alper KÖSE
Pages
227–240
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)

In the subscale of sense of teachers , 1 item for gender, 1 item for Ireland-GBR sample, 2 items for USA-GBR sample and4 items for USA-Turkey sample were flagged as DIF.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study was aimed to assess items of PISA-2009 student questionnaire s subscales ofsense of school learnings and sense of teachers in terms of differential item functioning by using gender and 4 different country data comperatively.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used for data sets saperately to test the unidimensionality assumption of IRT.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In the subscale of sense of teachers , 1 item for gender, 1 item for Ireland-GBR sample, 2 items for USA-GBR sample and4 items for USA-Turkey sample were flagged as DIF.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2009 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study was aimed to assess items of PISA-2009 student questionnaire s subscales ofsense of school learnings and sense of teachers in terms of differential item functioning by using gender and 4 different country data comperatively. For the DIF analysis, likelihood ratio test was preferred in graded response theory based on item response theory (IRT) because of polytomously scored items. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used for data sets saperately to test the unidimensionality assumption of IRT. CFA analysis showed that unifactorial construct of subtests was confirmed and unidimensionality assumption of IRT was met. DIF analysis were carried out by MULTILOG software and 2 items for gender, 1 item for Ireland-GBR sample, 2 items for USA-GBR sample and 4 items for Turkey-USA sample was flagged as DIF in the subscale of sense of school learnings . In the subscale of sense of teachers , 1 item for gender, 1 item for Ireland-GBR sample, 2 items for USA-GBR sample and4 items for USA-Turkey sample were flagged as DIF.

Özet

Bu araştırmada PISA-2009 öğrenci anketinde bulunan okula ve öğretmenlere ilişki algı alt testlerinde yer alan maddelerin DMF açısından 4 farklı ülke (Türkiye, ABD, İrlanda ve İngiltere) ve cinsiyete göre ele alınarak karşılaştırmalı olarak araştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada kullanılan maddeler çoklu puanlandığı için DMF analizinde aşamalı tepki modeli altında kullanılan olabilirlik oranı testi (likelihood ratio test) tercih edilmiştir. DMF analizlerine geçmeden önce öncelikle MTKnın tek boyutluluk varsayımı test edilmiş ve veri gruplarına ayrı ayrı DFA uygulanmıştır. DFA analizleri sonucunda alt testler için test edilen tak faktörlü ölçme modelinin doğrulandığı ve MTKnın tek boyutluluk varsayımının karşılandığı ortaya konmuştur. Ölçeklerdeki maddelerde DMF bulunup bulunmadığı MULTILOG programı yazılımı ile analiz edilmiş ve okul öğrenmelerine ilişkin algı alt ölçeğinde cinsiyete göre 2, IRL-ING örneklemlerinde 1, ABD-İngilterede 2 ve ABD-Türkiyede 4 maddede, öğretmenlere yönelik algı alt ölçeğinde ise cinsiyete göre 1, İrlanda-İngiltere örneklemlerinde 1, ABD-İngilterede 2 ve ABD-Türkiyede 4 maddede DMF bulunduğu istatistiksel olarak ortaya konmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

KÖSE, İ. A. (2022). Investigation of items in pisa 2009 student questionnaire subscales (q32-q33) in terms of differential item functioning. Kastamonu Üniversitesi Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 1, 227–240. https://ajindex.com/articles/572084

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Asil, M. ve Gelbal, S. (2012). PISA öğrenci anketinin kültürler arası eşdeğerliği. Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(166), 236-249.
  2. Atalay, K. (2010). PISA 2006 öğrenci anketinde yer alan tutum maddelerinin değişen madde fonksiyonu açısından incelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi,
  3. Ankara.
  4. 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.
  5. Bolt, D.M. (2002). A Monte Carlo comparison of parametric and nonparametric polytomous DIF detection methods. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(2), 113-141.
  6. Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validty of a measuring instrument. International Journal of Testing, 1(1), 55-86.
  7. Byrne, B.M., Shavelson, R.J. ve Muthen, B. (1989). Testingfor the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: the issueof partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105 (3), 456-466.
  8. Camilli, G. veShepard, L.A. (1994). Methods for Identifying Biased Test Items. ThousandOaks. Sage Publications. Cohen, A.S., Kim, A.H. and Baker, F.B. (1993). Detection of differential item functioning in the graded response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17(4), 335-350.
  9. Embretson, S.E. and Reise, S.P. (2000). Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New Jersey, USA. Gillapsy, J.A. (1996). A Primer on Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. (Eric document reproduction service no: ED 395 040). Hableton, R.K. and Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item Response Theory. Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing, MA, USA. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H. and Rogers, H. (1991). Fundamentals of Item Response Teory. Newbury Park CA: Sage. Hu, L. & Bentler, P.M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues and Applications (pp. 76-99).
  10. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lautenschlager, G.J., Flaherty, V.L. and Park, D.G. (1994). IRT Differential item functioning: An examination of ability scale purifications. Educational and Psychological MeasureMent, 54, 21. Lee, K. (2003). Parametric and Nonparametric IRT Models for Assessing Differential Item Functioning. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Wayne State University, USA. Kamata, A. and Vaughn, B. (2004). An introductio