-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Checking Equity: Why Differential Item Functioning Analysis Should Be a Routine Part of Developing Conceptual Assessments
P. Martinková, A. Drabinová, YL. Liaw, EA. Sanders, JL. McFarland, RM. Price,
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články
NLK
Free Medical Journals
od 2002
PubMed Central
od 2006
Europe PubMed Central
od 2006
PubMed
28572182
DOI
10.1187/cbe.16-10-0307
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- MeSH
- diagnostické sebehodnocení * MeSH
- interpretace statistických dat MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- průzkumy a dotazníky * MeSH
- psychometrie metody MeSH
- reprodukovatelnost výsledků MeSH
- senzitivita a specificita MeSH
- statistické modely * MeSH
- zkreslení výsledků (epidemiologie) * MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
We provide a tutorial on differential item functioning (DIF) analysis, an analytic method useful for identifying potentially biased items in assessments. After explaining a number of methodological approaches, we test for gender bias in two scenarios that demonstrate why DIF analysis is crucial for developing assessments, particularly because simply comparing two groups' total scores can lead to incorrect conclusions about test fairness. First, a significant difference between groups on total scores can exist even when items are not biased, as we illustrate with data collected during the validation of the Homeostasis Concept Inventory. Second, item bias can exist even when the two groups have exactly the same distribution of total scores, as we illustrate with a simulated data set. We also present a brief overview of how DIF analysis has been used in the biology education literature to illustrate the way DIF items need to be reevaluated by content experts to determine whether they should be revised or removed from the assessment. Finally, we conclude by arguing that DIF analysis should be used routinely to evaluate items in developing conceptual assessments. These steps will ensure more equitable-and therefore more valid-scores from conceptual assessments.
Biology Department Edmonds Community College Lynnwood WA 98036
Center for Educational Measurement University of Oslo Oslo 0318 Norway
College of Education University of Washington Seattle WA 98195
Institute of Computer Science Czech Academy of Sciences Praha 182 07 Czech Republic
School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences University of Washington Bothell Bothell WA 98011
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc18024974
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20180712113307.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 180709s2017 xxu f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1187/cbe.16-10-0307 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)28572182
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxu
- 100 1_
- $a Martinková, Patrícia $u Institute of Computer Science, Czech Academy of Sciences, Praha 182 07, Czech Republic martinkova@cs.cas.cz.
- 245 10
- $a Checking Equity: Why Differential Item Functioning Analysis Should Be a Routine Part of Developing Conceptual Assessments / $c P. Martinková, A. Drabinová, YL. Liaw, EA. Sanders, JL. McFarland, RM. Price,
- 520 9_
- $a We provide a tutorial on differential item functioning (DIF) analysis, an analytic method useful for identifying potentially biased items in assessments. After explaining a number of methodological approaches, we test for gender bias in two scenarios that demonstrate why DIF analysis is crucial for developing assessments, particularly because simply comparing two groups' total scores can lead to incorrect conclusions about test fairness. First, a significant difference between groups on total scores can exist even when items are not biased, as we illustrate with data collected during the validation of the Homeostasis Concept Inventory. Second, item bias can exist even when the two groups have exactly the same distribution of total scores, as we illustrate with a simulated data set. We also present a brief overview of how DIF analysis has been used in the biology education literature to illustrate the way DIF items need to be reevaluated by content experts to determine whether they should be revised or removed from the assessment. Finally, we conclude by arguing that DIF analysis should be used routinely to evaluate items in developing conceptual assessments. These steps will ensure more equitable-and therefore more valid-scores from conceptual assessments.
- 650 12
- $a zkreslení výsledků (epidemiologie) $7 D015982
- 650 _2
- $a interpretace statistických dat $7 D003627
- 650 12
- $a diagnostické sebehodnocení $7 D059026
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 12
- $a statistické modely $7 D015233
- 650 _2
- $a psychometrie $x metody $7 D011594
- 650 _2
- $a reprodukovatelnost výsledků $7 D015203
- 650 _2
- $a senzitivita a specificita $7 D012680
- 650 12
- $a průzkumy a dotazníky $7 D011795
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Drabinová, Adéla $u Institute of Computer Science, Czech Academy of Sciences, Praha 182 07, Czech Republic. Department of Probability and Mathematical Statistics, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, Praha 186 75, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Liaw, Yuan-Ling $u Center for Educational Measurement, University of Oslo, Oslo 0318, Norway.
- 700 1_
- $a Sanders, Elizabeth A $u College of Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.
- 700 1_
- $a McFarland, Jenny L $u Biology Department, Edmonds Community College, Lynnwood, WA 98036.
- 700 1_
- $a Price, Rebecca M $u School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, University of Washington, Bothell, Bothell, WA 98011.
- 773 0_
- $w MED00165972 $t CBE life sciences education $x 1931-7913 $g Roč. 16, č. 2 (2017)
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28572182 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20180709 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20180712113559 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1317105 $s 1021895
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2017 $b 16 $c 2 $i 1931-7913 $m CBE life sciences education $n CBE life sci. ed. $x MED00165972
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20180709