2015
DOI: 10.1080/15305058.2015.1057639
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Exploring Crossing Differential Item Functioning by Gender in Mathematics Assessment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These abilities are needed to answer 14 SLiSIS test items which measure Evaluate and design scientific inquiry skills. The results of this study are following several previous DIF studies which benefit the male in measuring mathematical reasoning abilities (Coletta et al, 2012;Reilly, 2012;Stoet & Geary, 2012;Taylor & Lee, 2012;Ong et Al., 2015;Yildirim, 2019).…”
Section: Figure 1 Icc For Items Number 2 and Number 22supporting
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These abilities are needed to answer 14 SLiSIS test items which measure Evaluate and design scientific inquiry skills. The results of this study are following several previous DIF studies which benefit the male in measuring mathematical reasoning abilities (Coletta et al, 2012;Reilly, 2012;Stoet & Geary, 2012;Taylor & Lee, 2012;Ong et Al., 2015;Yildirim, 2019).…”
Section: Figure 1 Icc For Items Number 2 and Number 22supporting
confidence: 86%
“…Likewise, it is found that the use of samples that are not equivalent to the presence of DIF can be undetected (Rahmawati, 2019). The DIF methodology study also shows that the non-uniform DIF and Crossing DIF are not the real DIF (Ong et al, 2015;Rouquette et al, 2016;Gómez-Benito et al, 2018). Based on consideration of these methodological aspects, it is necessary to be careful in determining the level of trust when assigning the DIF status of an item.…”
Section: Figure 1 Icc For Items Number 2 and Number 22mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Again, from table 1, seven items (5, 12, 14, 17, 22, 25 and 39) out of 50 were DIF free, thus these items did not function differently among examinees being it male or female. The items 1, 2, 3,4,7,8,9,15,16,19,20,23,27,29,31,35,37,38,42,44,45,46, 49 and 50 were in favour of males, whereas the items 6,10,11,13,18,21,24,26,28,30,32,33,34,36,40,41,43,46, 47 and 48 were in favour of females. The nine items that revealed statistically significant uniform DIF had 5 in favour of males and 4 in favour of females, whereas the thirty-four items that revealed statistically significant non-uniform DIF had 18 in favour of males and 16 in favour of females.…”
Section: Gender Differences and It Link To Content Areas Within Mathematicsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The DIF analysis results from these six methods were then compared to examine the compatibility between the approaches for identifying DIF effects. For this purpose, previous research has shown that items containing DIF are frequently found in gender group bias analyses, particularly in numerical domains, such as mathematics (Başman & Kutlu, 2020;Eren et al, 2023;Ong et al, 2015;Wu et al, 2020;Yildirim, 2019). Therefore, in this study, gender is used as the DIF variable.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%