Do Different Approaches to Examining Construct Comparability in Multilanguage Assessments Lead to Similar Conclusions?

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read Online Read More Add to Saved list
  • Author(s): Oliveri, Maria E.; Ercikan, Kadriye
  • Language:
    English
  • Source:
    Applied Measurement in Education. 2011 24(4):349-366.
  • Publication Date:
    2011
  • Document Type:
    Journal Articles
    Reports - Research
  • Additional Information
    • Availability:
      Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
    • Peer Reviewed:
      Y
    • Source:
      18
    • Subject Terms:
      Foreign Countries; English; French; Tests; Test Items; Item Analysis; Test Bias; Comparative Analysis; Reliability
    • Subject Terms:
      Canada
    • Subject Terms:
      Program for International Student Assessment
    • Accession Number:
      10.1080/08957347.2011.607063
    • ISSN:
      0895-7347
    • Abstract:
      In this study, we examine the degree of construct comparability and possible sources of incomparability of the English and French versions of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2003 problem-solving measure administered in Canada. Several approaches were used to examine construct comparability at the test- (examination of test data structure, reliability comparisons and test characteristic curves) and item-levels (differential item functioning, item parameter correlations, and linguistic comparisons). Results from the test-level analyses indicate that the two language versions of PISA are highly similar as shown by similarity of internal consistency coefficients, test data structure (same number of factors and item factor loadings) and test characteristic curves for the two language versions of the tests. However, results of item-level analyses reveal several differences between the two language versions as shown by large proportions of items displaying differential item functioning, differences in item parameter correlations (discrimination parameters) and number of items found to contain linguistic differences. (Contains 2 tables and 3 figures.)
    • Abstract:
      As Provided
    • Number of References:
      44
    • Publication Date:
      2011
    • Accession Number:
      EJ946746