EBRU BALTA
(Corresponding author: Ankara University, Faculty of Educational Science, Department of Measurement and Evaluation, TURKEY,)
SEÇİL ÖMÜR SÜNBÜL
(Mersin University, Faculty of Educational Science, Department of Measurement and Evaluation, TURKEY,)
Yıl: 2017Cilt: 17Sayı: 72ISSN: 1302-597X / 2528-8911Sayfa Aralığı: 23 - 41İngilizce

46 2
An Investigation of Ordering Test Items Differently Depending on Their Difficulty Level by Differential Item Functioning
Sosyal > Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları
DergiAraştırma MakalesiErişime Açık
  • Barcikovski, R. S., & Olsen, H. (1975). Test item arrangement and adaptation level. The Journal of Psychology, 90(1), 87-93. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1975.9923929.
  • Bertrand, R., & Boiteau, N. (2003). Comparing the stability of IRT-based and non IRTbased DIF methods in different cultural context using TIMSS data. (EDRS Reports – Research -143 , ED 476 924, TM 034 975). Quebec, Canada: NA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED476924).
  • Bulut, O. (2015). An empirical analysis of gender-based DIF due to test booklet effect. European Journal of Research on Education, 3(1), 7-16. Retrieved from http://iassr2.org/rs/030102.pdf
  • Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Hollywood: Sage Publication.
  • Clauser, B. E., & Mazor, K. (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.
  • Chiu, P. (2012,April) . The Effect of item position on state mathematics assessment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada.
  • Gomez‐Benito, J., & Navas‐Ara, M. J. (2000). A comparison of Ki‐kare, RFA and IRT based procedures in the detection of DIF. Quality ve Quantity, 34(1),17–31. doi: 10.1023/A:1004703709442.
  • Hahne, J. (2008). Analyzing position effects within reasoning items using the LLTM for structurally Incomplete data. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50(3), 379-390. Retrieved from http://journaldatabase.info/articles/analyzing_position_effects_within.ht ml
  • Hohensinn, C., Kubinger, K. D., Reif, M., Schleicher, E., & Khorramdel, L. (2011). Analysing item position effects due to test booklet design within large-scale assessment. Educational Research and Evaluation, 17(6), 497-509. doi: 10.1080/13803611.2011.632668.
  • Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. E. (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Jodoin, M. G., & Gierl, M.J. (2001). Evaluating type I error and power rates using an effect size measure with logistic regression procedure for DIF detection. Applied Measurement in Education, 14(4), 329-349. doi:10.1207/S15324818AME1404_2.
  • Kingston, N. M., & Dorans, N. J. (1984). Item location effects and their implications for IRT equating and adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8(2), 147–154. Retrieved from doi: 10.1177/014662168400800202.
  • Kleinke, D. J. (1980). Item order, response location, and examinee sex and handedness on performance on multiple-choice tests. Journal of Educational Research, 73(4), 225–229. doi:10.1080/00220671.1980.10885240.
  • Klimko, I. P. (1984). Item arrangement, cognitive entry characteristics, sex, and test anxiety as predictors of achievement examination performance. Journal of Experimental Education, 52(4), 214-219. doi: 10.1080/00220973.1984.11011896.
  • Leary, L. F., & Dorans, N. J. (1985). Implications for altering the context in which test items appear: A Historical Perspective on Immediate Concern. Review of Educational Research, 55(33), 387-413. doi: 10.3102/00346543055003387.
  • Lord, F. M.,& Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Welsley Publishing Company.
  • Louisa, N. (2013). Effect of item arrangement on test reliability coefficients: implications for testing. Journal of Research in Education and Society, 4(3), 54- 62. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001316447303300224?journ alCode=epma
  • Magis, D., Beland, S., & Raiche, G. (2015). difR: Collection of methods to detect dichotomous differential item functioning (DIF). [Computer software]. Available from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=difR
  • Miller, S. K. (1989). Interaction effects of gender and item arrangement on test and item performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
  • Narayanan, P., & Swaminathan, H. (1994). Performance of the Mantel-Haenszel and simultaneous item bias procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18(4), 315-338. doi: 10.1177/014662169401800403.
  • Pang, X. L., & et all. (1994,April). Performance of Mantel-Haenszel and Logistic Regression DIF procedures over replications using real data. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,New Orleans, LA.
  • Penfield, R. D., & Camilli, G. (2007). Differential item functioning and item bias. In C. R. Rao & S. Sinharay (Eds.), Handbook of statistics psychometrics (Vol.26, pp. 125–167). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Ryan, K. E. ,& Chiu, S. (2001). An examination of item context effects, DIF, and gender DIF. Applied Measurement in Education, 14 (1), 73–90. doi:10.1207/S15324818AME1401_06.
  • Wiberg, M. (2007). Measuring and detecting differential item functioning in criterionreferenced licensing test: a theoretic comparison of methods (EM No. 60). Umea, Sweden: Umea University, Department of Educational Measurement.
  • Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(4), 361-370. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1990.tb00754.x.
  • Zieky, M. (1993). Practical questions in the use of DIF statistics in test development. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 337- 347). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Yen, W. M. (1980). The extent, causes and importance of context effects on item parameters for two latent trait models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 17(4), 297–311. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1980.tb00833.x.
  • Zumbo, B. D., & Thomas, D. R. (1996). A measure of effect size for a model-based approach for studying DIF (Working paper of the Edgeworth Laboratory for Quantitative Behavioral Science). Prince George, Canada: University of Northern British Columbia.

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © 2019 Tüm Hakları Saklıdır.