Identifying the Causes of DIF in Translated Verbal Items

Journal of Educational Measurement - Tập 36 Số 3 - Trang 185-198 - 1999
Avi Allalouf1,2,3,4, Ronald K. Hambleton1,3,4,5, Stephen G. Sireci1,3,4,5
1AVI ALLALOUF is Director of Scoring and Equating, National Institute for Testing & Evaluation, P.O. Box 26015, Jerusalem 91260, Israel
2National Institute for Testing and Evaluation, Israel
3RONALD K. HAMBLETON is Distinguished University Professor, University of Massachusetts. Degree: PhD, University of Toronto. Specializations: computer-based testing, item response theory, large scale assessment.
4STEPHEN G. SIRECI is Assistant Professor, School of Education, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Degrees: BA, MA, Loyola College in Baltimore, PhD. Fordham University. Specializations: multidimensional scaling, test development, test evaluation.
5University of Massachusetts Amherst

Tóm tắt

Translated tests are being used increasingly for assessing the knowledge and skills of individuals who speak different languages. There is little research exploring why translated items sometimes function differently across languages. If the sources of differential item functioning (DIF) across languages could be predicted, it could have important implications on test development, scoring and equating. This study focuses on two questions: “Is DIF related to item type?”, “What are the causes of DIF?” The data were taken from the Israeli Psychometric Entrance Test in Hebrew (source) and Russian (translated). The results indicated that 34% of the items functioned differentially across languages. The analogy items were the most problematic with 65% showing DIF, mostly in favor of the Russian‐speaking examinees. The sentence completion items were also a problem (45% D1F). The main reasons for DIF were changes in word difficulty, changes in item format, differences in cultural relevance, and changes in content.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Allalouf A. Bastari B. Sireci S. G. &Hambleton R. K.(1997 October).Comparing the dimensionality of a test administered in two languages.Paper presented at the meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association Ellenville NY.

Angoff W. H.(1972).A technique for the investigation of cultural differences.Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association Honolulu. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 069686).

Angoff W. H., 1988, Equating the scores of the Prueba de Aptitud Academica and the Scholastic Aptitude Test, 10.1002/j.2330-8516.1988.tb00259.x

Angoff W. H., 1973, Equating the scores of the Prueba de Aptitud Academica and the Scholastic Aptitude Test

10.1007/978-1-4613-9690-1

10.1111/j.1745-3992.1994.tb00791.x

10.1007/978-94-011-0639-9_12

Curley W. E., 1993, Revising SAT‐Verbal items to eliminate differential item functioning, 10.1002/j.2333-8504.1993.tb01572.x

Dorans N. J., 1993, Differential item functioning, 35

10.1037/0021-9010.74.6.912

10.1027/1015-5759.11.3.184

Gafni N. &Canaan‐Yehoshafat Z.(1993 October).An examination of differential item functioning for Hebrew and Russian‐speaking examinees in Israel.Paper presented at the Conference of the Israeli Psychological Association Ramat‐Gan.

Hambleton R. K., 1994, Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: A progress report, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10, 229

Hambleton R. K., 1993, Advances in detection of differentially functioning test items, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 9, 1

Hambleton R. K., 1995, Comparison of empirical and judgmental procedures for detecting differential item functioning, Educational Research Quarterly, 18, 21

Holland P. W., 1988, Test validity, 129

10.1177/0022002187018002001

Roccas S., 1997, Factors affecting the difficulty of verbal analogies

Rogers H. J., 1993, DICHODIF: A FORTRAN program for DIF analysis of dichotomously scored item response data

Schmitt A. P, 1987, Factors affecting differential item functioning of black examinees on Scholastic Aptitude Test analogy items, 10.1002/j.2330-8516.1987.tb00227.x

10.1111/j.1745-3992.1997.tb00581.x

Sireci S. G. &Swaminathan H.(1996 October).Evaluating translation equivalence: So what's the big difPaper presented at the meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association Ellenville NY.

Stoller R., 1997, Statistical report

Thissen D., 1993, Differential item functioning, 67

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of Educational Measurement

Tập 36 Số 3

185-198

Thông tin tác giả