Değişen Madde Fonksiyonu Belirlemede MTK-Olabilirlik Oranı, Ordinal Lojistik Regresyon ve Poly-Sıbtest Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırılması

Arş.grv. Çiğdem Akın Arıkan

doi:10.19160/e-ijer.24504

EN TR

Comparison of IRT Likelihood Ratio Test, Poly-Sıbtest and Logistic Regression DIF Detection Procedures

Abstract

Problem and Purpose: PISA, which are implemented in many countries, identify strengths and weaknesses of education systems of such countries and pave the way for developing future-oriented policies for education systems. For this reason, PISA results need to be able to enlighten differences among individuals and include minimum error. In other terms, reliability and validity evidences regarding measuring results must be presented. One important threat against validity is item and test bias (Clauser and Mazor, 1998). The individuals at the same level of ability are normally expected to get the same score from the test or items in a test. However, probability of correct answers in subgroups of the same ability level might differ due to conditions of the test or some attributes of the item. This is called differential item functioning (DIF) (Zumbo, 2007; Finch and French, 2007). DIF refers to systematic differentiation of individuals in a group with the same test score and ability level in terms of probability of answering a certain test item (Doğan, Guerrero and Tatsuoka, 2005). Regarding items of attitude, Hulin, Drasgow and Parsons (1983) define DIF as differing probability of showing positive attitude towards a certain item by individuals in different subgroups with the same ability level (cited by Johanson and Dodeen, 2003). In attitude scales, existence of DIF affects accuracy of measuring results in a negative way. The study aims at identify whether or not items in PISA 2012 maths work ethics questionnaire differ by gender was examined with polySIBTEST, MTK-OO and OLR methods. Also it was investigated whether items showing DIF change depending on methods.

Keywords

References

Asil, M. (2010). Uluslar arası Öğrenci Değerlendirme Programı (PISA) 2006 Öğrenci Anketinin Kültürler Arası Eşdeğerliğinin İncelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
Ayan, C. (2011). PISA 2009 Fen Okuryazarlığı Alt Testinin Değişen Madde Fonksiyonu Açısından İncelenmesi, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
Atar, B. ve Kamata, A. (2011). MTK Olabilirlik Oranı testi ve Lojistik regresyon Değişen madde Fonksiyonu Belirleme Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırılması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 41: 36-47
Bakan Kalaycıoğlu, D. ve Kelecioğlu, H. (2011). Öğrenci Seçme Sınavı'nın madde yanlılığı açısından incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36 (161), 3-12.
Camilli, G. (2006). Test fairness. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 221- 256). Westport: American Council on Education&Praeger Publishers.
Clauser, B. E.,& Mazor, K. M. (1998). Using statistical procedure to identify differential item functioning test items. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 31-44.
Costa, P.D. & Araşjo L. (2012). Differential Item Functioning (DIF): What Functions Differently for Immigrant Students in PISA 2009 Reading Items? European Commission Joint Research Centre. İtalya.
Doğan, E., Guerrero, A. & Tatsuoka, K. (2005). Using DIF toinvestigatestrenght ad weakness in mathematicsachievement profiles of 10 differentcountries. The annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education-NCME (2005,12-14 April). Montreal, Canada.

Embretson, S. E.,& Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Eğitim Reformu Girişimi (2010). Pısa 2009 Sonuçlarına İlişkin Değerlendirme. (http://erg.sabanciuniv.edu/sites/erg.sabanciuniv.edu/files/PISA2009DegerlendirmeNotu_Fi nal_08022010.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 06.05.2014).
Finch, W. H. ve French. F.B. (2007). Detection of Crossing Differential Item Functioning A Comparison of Four Methods. Applied Psychological Measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement67.4.
Gök, B., Atalay Kabasakal, K. ve Kelecioğlu, H. (2015). PISA 2009 Öğrenci Anketi Tutum Maddelerinin Kültüre Göre Değişen Madde Fonksiyonu Açısından İncelenmesi. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 5/1, Yaz 2014, 72-87.
Hambleton, R. K. & De Jong, J.H.A.L. (2003). Advances in translating and adapting educational and psychological tests. Language Testing, 20(2).
Hambleton, R. K & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Norwell, MA:kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P. F. ve Spielberger, C. D. (eds.) (2005). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum.
Huang, X. (2010). Differential Item Functioning: The Consequence of Language, Curriculum, or Culture?, Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley: USA
Johanson, G. A., & Dodeen, H. (2003). An Analysis of Sex-related Differential Item Functioning in Attitude Assessment. Assesment &Evaluation in Higher Education, 28.
Le, L.T. (2009). Investigation gender differential item functioning across countries
ABD test languages for PISA science items. International Journal of Testing. 9(2), 122–133.
MEB (2013). PISA 2012 Uluslararası Öğrenci Değerlendirme Programı Ulusal Ön Raporu. MEB, Ankara.
Öğretmen, T. (1995). Differential item functioning analysis of the verbal ability section of the first stage of the university entrance examination in Turkey. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi.
Özdemir, D. (2003). Çoktan seçmeli testlerde iki kategorili ve önsel ağırlıklı puanlamanın diferansiyel madde fonksiyonuna etkisi ile ilgili bir araştırma. Eğitim ve Bilim. 25; 37–44.
Stout, W. F.,&Roussos, L. A. (1995). SIBTEST Users Manual, (2nd ed.). Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois.
Thissen, D. (2001). IRTLRDIF (Version 2.0b) [Computersoftware]. Chapel Hill: L. L. Thurstone Psychometric Laboratory, University of North Carolina.
Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Tanzer, N. K. (2004). Bias and Equivalence in Cross-Cultural Assessment. European Review of Applied Psychology, 54, 119-135.
Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A Handbook on theTheory and Methods of Differential Item
Functioning (DIF): Logistic Regression Modeling as a Unitary Framework for Binary and Likert-type (Ordinal) ItemScores. Ottawa ON: Directorate of Human Resources Researchand Evaluation, Department of National Defense.
Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Three generations of DIF analyses: Considering where it has been, Where it is now, and Where It Is Going. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(2), 223–233.

Details

Primary Language

Turkish

Subjects

-

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Arş.grv. Çiğdem Akın Arıkan

Publication Date

July 3, 2015

Submission Date

September 30, 2014

Acceptance Date

-

Published in Issue

Year 1970 Volume: 6 Number: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.24504

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA57US87LY

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Akın Arıkan, A. Ç. (2015). Değişen Madde Fonksiyonu Belirlemede MTK-Olabilirlik Oranı, Ordinal Lojistik Regresyon ve Poly-Sıbtest Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırılması. E-Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.24504

Cited By

E-Değerlendirmeye Yönelik Tutum Ölçeğinin Madde Yanlılığının İncelenmesi

Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi

https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2023..-1192209

Comparison of IRT Likelihood Ratio Test, Poly-Sıbtest and Logistic Regression DIF Detection Procedures

Abstract

Keywords