More Like this

1. Are translated mathematics items a valid accommodation for dual language learners? Evidence from ECLS-K

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.06.001  

   Goodrich, John Marc; Koziol, Natalie A.; Yoon, Hyeonjin (January 2021, Early childhood research quarterly)

   When measuring academic skills among students whose primary language is not English, standardized assessments are often provided in languages other than English. The degree to which alternate-language test translations yield unbiased, equitable assessment must be evaluated; however, traditional methods of investigating measurement equivalence are susceptible to confounding group differences. The primary purposes of this study were to investigate differential item functioning (DIF) and item bias across Spanish and English forms of an assessment of early mathematics skills. Secondary purposes were to investigate the presence of selection bias and demonstrate a novel approach for investigating DIF that uses a regression discontinuity design framework to control for selection bias. Data were drawn from 1,750 Spanish-speaking Kindergarteners participating in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–1999, who were administered either the Spanish or English version of the mathematics assessment based on their performance on an English language screening measure. Evidence of selection bias—differences between groups in SES, age, approaches to learning, self-control, social interaction, country of birth, childcare, household composition and number in the home, books in the home, and parent involvement—highlighted limitations of a traditional approach for investigating DIF that only controlled for ability. When controlling for selection bias, only 11% of items displayed DIF, and subsequent examination of item content did not suggest item bias. Results provide evidence that the Spanish translation of the ECLS-K mathematics assessment is an equitable and unbiased assessment accommodation for young dual language learners. 

   more » « less
2. Adaptation of the Delphi technique in the development of assessments of problem-solving in computer adaptive testing environments (DEAP-CAT).

   https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2021.2142  

   Koskey, K. L.; Bright, D.; Struloeff, K.; Sondergeld, T.; Stone, G.; Bostic, J.; Matney, G. (November 2021, Proceedings of the International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation)

   The Standards for educational and psychological assessment were developed by the American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education (AERA et al., 2014). The Standards specify assessment developers establish five types of validity evidence: test content, response processes, internal structure, relationship to other variables, and consequential/bias. Relevant to this proposal is consequential validity evidence that identifies the potential negative impact of testing or bias. Standard 3.1 of The Standards (2014) on fairness in testing states that “those responsible for test development, revision, and administration should design all steps of the testing process to promote valid score interpretations for intended score uses for the widest possible range of individuals and relevant sub-groups in the intended populations” (p. 63). Three types of bias include construct, method, and item bias (Boer et al., 2018). Testing for differential item functioning (DIF) is a standard analysis adopted to detect item bias against a subgroup (Boer et al., 2018). Example subgroups include gender, race/ethnic group, socioeconomic status, native language, or disability. DIF is when “equally able test takers differ in their probabilities answering a test item correctly as a function of group membership” (AERA et al., 2005, p. 51). DIF indicates systematic error as compared to real mean group differences (Camilli & Shepard, 1994). Items exhibiting significant DIF are removed or reviewed for sources leading to bias to determine modifications to retain and further test an item. The Delphi technique is an emergent systematic research method whereby expert panel members review item content through an iterative process (Yildirim & Büyüköztürk, 2018). Experts independently evaluate each item for potential sources leading to DIF, researchers group their responses, and experts then independently complete a survey to rate their level of agreement with the anonymously grouped responses. This process continues until saturation and consensus are reached among experts as established through some criterion (e.g., median agreement rating, item quartile range, and percent agreement). The technique allows researchers to “identify, learn, and share the ideas of experts by searching for agreement among experts” (Yildirim & Büyüköztürk, 2018, p. 451). Research has illustrated this technique applied after DIF is detected, but not before administering items in the field. The current research is a methodological illustration of the Delphi technique applied in the item construction phase of assessment development as part of a five-year study to develop and test new problem-solving measures (PSM; Bostic et al., 2015, 2017) for U.S.A. grades 6-8 in a computer adaptive testing environment. As part of an iterative design-science-based methodology (Middleton et al., 2008), we illustrate the integration of the Delphi technique into the item writing process. Results from two three-person panels each reviewing a set of 45 PSM items are utilized to illustrate the technique. Advantages and limitations identified through a survey by participating experts and researchers are outlined to advance the method. 

   more » « less
3. Measuring visual ability in linguistically diverse populations

   https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02579-x  

   Hooper, Madison A; Tomarken, Andrew; Gauthier, Isabel (January 2025, Behavior Research Methods)

   Abstract Measurement of object recognition (OR) ability could predict learning and success in real-world settings, and there is hope that it may reduce bias often observed in cognitive tests. Although the measurement of visual OR is not expected to be influenced by the language of participants or the language of instructions, these assumptions remain largely untested. Here, we address the challenges of measuring OR abilities across linguistically diverse populations. In Study 1, we find that English–Spanish bilinguals, when randomly assigned to the English or Spanish version of the novel object memory test (NOMT), exhibit a highly similar overall performance. Study 2 extends this by assessing psychometric equivalence using an approach grounded in item response theory (IRT). We examined whether groups fluent in English or Spanish differed in (a) latent OR ability as assessed by a three-parameter logistic IRT model, and (2) the mapping of observed item responses on the latent OR construct, as assessed by differential item functioning (DIF) analyses. Spanish speakers performed better than English speakers, a difference we suggest is due to motivational differences between groups of vastly different size on the Prolific platform. That we found no substantial DIF between the groups tested in English or Spanish on the NOMT indicates measurement invariance. The feasibility of increasing diversity by combining groups tested in different languages remains unexplored. Adopting this approach could enable visual scientists to enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion in their research, and potentially in the broader application of their work in society. 

   more » « less
4. Evaluating The Fairness Of The Undergraduate Supports Survey: A DIF Analysis Of Gender And Year-In-School

   https://doi.org/10.21427/WCR9-XC75  

   Gentry, Adrian N; Holloway, Eric; Martin, Julie; Li, Tiantin; Douglas, Kerrie A (October 2023, European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI))

   It is well established that access to social supports is essential for engineering students’ persistence and yet access to supports varies across groups. Understanding the differential supports inherent in students’ social networks and then working to provide additional needed supports can help the field of engineering education become more inclusive of all students. Our work contributes to this effort by examing the reliability and fairness of a social capital instrument, the Undergraduate Supports Survey (USS). We examined the extent to which two scales were reliable across ability levels (level of social capital), gender groups and year-in-school. We conducted two item response theory (IRT) models using a graded response model and performed differential item functioning (DIF) tests to detect item differences in gender and year-in-school. Our results indicate that most items have acceptable to good item discrimination and difficulty. DIF analysis shows that multiple items report DIF across gender groups in the Expressive Support scale in favor of women and nonbinary engineering students. DIF analysis shows that year-in-school has little to no effect on items, with only one DIF item. Therefore, engineering educators can use the USS confidently to examine expressive and instrumental social capital in undergraduates across year-in-school. Our work can be used by the engineering education research community to identify and address differences in students’ access to support. We recommend that the engineering education community works to be explicit in their expressive and instrumental support. Future work will explore the measurement invariance in Expressive Support items across gender. 

   more » « less
5. Evaluating the Fairness of the Undergraduate Supports Survey: A DIF Analysis of Gender and Year-in-School

   Gentry, A. N.; Holloway, E. A.; Martin, J. P.; Li, T.; Douglas, K. A. (October 2023, SEFI Annual Conference, TU Dublin, IE)

   It is well established that access to social supports is essential for engineering students’ persistence and yet access to supports varies across groups. Understanding the differential supports inherent in students’ social networks and then working to provide additional needed supports can help the field of engineering education become more inclusive of all students. Our work contributes to this effort by examing the reliability and fairness of a social capital instrument, the Undergraduate Supports Survey (USS). We examined the extent to which two scales were reliable across ability levels (level of social capital), gender groups and year-in-school. We conducted two item response theory (IRT) models using a graded response model and performed differential item functioning (DIF) tests to detect item differences in gender and year-in-school. Our results indicate that most items have acceptable to good item discrimination and difficulty. DIF analysis shows that multiple items report DIF across gender groups in the Expressive Support scale in favor of women and nonbinary engineering students. DIF analysis shows that year-in-school has little to no effect on items, with only one DIF item. Therefore, engineering educators can use the USS confidently to examine expressive and instrumental social capital in undergraduates across year-in-school. Our work can be used by the engineering education research community to identify and address differences in students’ access to support. We recommend that the engineering education community works to be explicit in their expressive and instrumental support. Future work will explore the measurement invariance in Expressive Support items across gender. 

   more » « less