Desarrollos didácticos y funcionamiento diferencial de los ítems. Problemas inherentes a toda investigación empírica sobre sesgo

  1. Torres Álvarez, Esther
  2. López Jauregui, Alicia
  3. Elosua Oliden, Paula
Zeitschrift:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915

Datum der Publikation: 2000

Ausgabe: 12

Nummer: 2

Seiten: 198-202

Art: Artikel

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen Access editor

Andere Publikationen in: Psicothema

Zusammenfassung

En este trabajo se exponen los problemas que surgen en toda investigación empírica sobre sesgo. Por un lado la inexistencia de una concordancia absoluta entre los distintos procedimientos de detección del funcionamiento diferencial del ítem (FDI) y por otro la falta de correspondencia entre el concepto de funcionamiento diferencial del ítem y el sesgo. Estos problemas se analizan a través del estudio del FDI en un test de aptitud numérica. Se estudian las fuentes de sesgo producidas por el desarrollo cognitivo y la proximidad temporal entre la instrucción y la administración de la prueba. Se comparan los resultados obtenidos por el estadístico Mantel-Haenszel y el ?2 de Lord (modelo logístico de 2 parámetros y modelo logístico de 3 parámetros). Los resultados evidencian la disparidad de conclusiones a las que se puede llegar en función del procedimiento de detección del FDI utilizado

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • Ackerman, T.A.(1992). Didactic explanation of item bias, item impact, and item validity from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29(1), 67-91.
  • Baker, F.B. (1994) EQUATE2: Computer program for equating two metrics in item response theory [Computer program]. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Laboratory of Experimental Design
  • Candell, G.L. y Drasgow, F.(1988): An iterative procedure for linking metrics and assessing item bias in item response theory. Applied psycholo gical measurement, 12(3), 253-260.
  • Cronbach, L.J.(1951). Coefficient Alpha and the Interntal Structure of Tests, Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
  • Cronbach, L.J.(1971). Test validation. In R.L. Thorndike(Ed.), Educational Measurement(pp.443-507). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
  • Dorans, N.J. y Kulick, E.(1986). Demonstrating the utility of the Standarization Approach to assessing unexpected Differential Item Performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23(4), 355-368.
  • Elosua, P. López, A y Egaña, J. (en prensa) Idioma de aplicación y rendimiento en una prueba de comprensión verbal.
  • Elosua, P. López, A y Egaña, J. (en prensa) Fuentes potenciales de sesgo en una prueba de aptitud numérica.
  • Elosua, P., López, A., Egaña, J., Artamendi, J. y Yenes, F. (en prensa) Funcionamiento diferencial de los ítems en la aplicación de pruebas psicológicas en entornos bilingües.
  • Fidalgo, A.M.(1994). MHDIF: A computer program for detecting uniform and nouniform differentzial item functioning with the Mantel-Haenszelprocedure.[Computer program] Dpto. Psicología, Universidad de Oviedo .
  • Hambleton, R.K., Clauser, B.E., Mazor, K.M. y Jones, R.W. (1993) Advances in the detection of differentially functioning test items. Europe an Journal of Psychological Assessment, 9(1), 1-18.
  • Hambleton, R.K. y Rogers, H.J.(1989). Detecting potentially biased test items: Comparison of IRT area and Mantel-Haenszel Methods. Applied Measurement in Education, 2(4), 313-334.
  • Hattie, J., Krakowski, K., Rogers, H.J. y Swaminathan, H.(1996) An assessment of Stout’s index of essential unidimensionality. Applied psychological measurement, 20(1), 1-14.
  • Holland, P.W. y Thayer, D.T.(1988). Differential Item Performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. En H. Wainer y H.J. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129-145). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Kim, S.H. y Cohen, A.S.(1991). A comparison of two area measures for detecting Differential Item Functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15(3), 269-278.
  • Kim S.H. y Cohen, A.S. (1992). IRTDIF: A computer program for IRT differential item functioning analysis [Computer Program] University of Wisconsin-Madison.
  • Linn, R.L. y Harnisch, D.L.(1981). Interactions between item content and group membership on achievement test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 18(2), 109-118.
  • Lord, F.M.(1977). A study of item bias, using item characteristic curve theory. En Y.H. Poortinga(Ed.), Basic problems Cross-Cultural Psychology (pp.19-29).Amsterdam: Swets y Zeitlinger.
  • Lord, F.M. (1980). Applications of Item Response Theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers .
  • Mayer, R.E. (1985). Capacidad matemática. En R.J. Sternberg, (de.) Human abilities. An information processing approach. New York: Freeman and company. (Trad. Cast. Las capacidades humanas. Un enfoque desde el procesamiento de la información. Barcelona. Labor, 1986)
  • Mazor, K.M., Clauser, P.E. y Hambleton, R.K. (1994). Identification of nonuniform Differential Item Functioning using a variation of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 284-291.
  • Mellenbergh, G.J.(1982). Contingency table models for assessing item bias. Journal of Educational Statistics, 7(2), 105-118.
  • Mellenbergh, G.J.(1989). Item bias and Item Response Theory. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 127-143.
  • Mellenbergh, G.J. y Kok, F.G.(1991). Finding the biasing trait(s). In P.L. Dann, S.H. Irvine y J.M. Collins(Eds.), Advances in computer-based human assessment(pp.291-306). Dordrecht: Kluver Academic Publishers.
  • Millsap, R.E. y Everson, H.T.(1993). Methodology review: Statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17(4), 297-334.
  • Mislevy, R.J. y Bock, R.D.(1990). BILOG·3: Item analysis and test scoring with binary logistic models.[Computer program]. Mooresville, IN: Scientific software.
  • Nandakumar, R. (1994) Assessing dimensionality pfaset of item responses. Comparison of different approaches. Journal of educational measurement, 31, 17-35.
  • Nandakumar, R. y Stout, W. (1993) Refinements of Stout’s procedure for assessing latent trait unidimensionality. Journal of educational statistics, 18,41-68
  • Nandakumar, R. y Yu, F. (1996) Empirical validation of DIMTEST on nonnormal ability distributions. Journal of educational measurement, 33, 355-368.
  • Padilla, J.L., Pérez, C. y González, A. (1999) Efecto de la instrucción sobre la dimensionalidad del test. Psicothema, 11(1), 183-193.
  • Raju, N.S.(1988). The area between two item characteristic curves. Psychometrika,53(4), 495-502.
  • Raju, N.S.(1990). Determining the significance of estimated signed and unsigned areas between two item response functions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14(2), 197-207.
  • Raju, N.S., Drasgow, F. y Slinde, J.A.(1993). An empirical comparison of the area methods, Lord’s Chi-square test and Mantel-Haenszel technique for assessing Differential Item Functioning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(2), 301-314.
  • Reckase, M.D.(1979). Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor test: Results and implications. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4, 207-230.
  • Rudner, L.M.(1977, April). An approach to biased item identification using latent trait measurement theory. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The American Educational Research Association, New York.
  • Shealy, R. y Stout, W.(1993). An Item Response Theory model of test bias and Differential Test Functioning. In W. P. Holland y H. Wainer(Eds.), Differential Item Functioning(pp.197-240). Hillsadale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
  • Shepard, L.A., Camilli, G. y Williams, D.M.(1985). Validity of aproximation techniques for detecting item bias. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22(2), 77-105.
  • Scheuneman, J.D.(1979). A method of assessing bias in test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 16(3), 143-152.
  • Scheuneman, J.D.(1987). An experimental exploratory study of causes of bias in test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24(1), 97-118.
  • Stocking, M.L. y Lord, F.M. (1983) Developing a common metric in item response theory. Applied psychological measurement, 7(2), 201.210.
  • Stout, W.F. (1987). A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 52, 589-617.
  • Swaminathan, H. y Rogers, H.J.(1990). Detecting Differential Item Functioning using logistic regresion procedures. Journal of Educational measurement, 27(4), 361-370.
  • Thissen, D. y Steinberg, L.(1988). Data analysis using Item Response Theory. Psychological Bulletin, 104(3), 385-395.
  • Torgerson, W.S.(1958). Theory and methods of scaling. New York: John Wiley.
  • Wright, B.D., Mead, R. y Draba, R.(1976). Detecting and correcting item bias with a logistic response model. (Research memorandum, Nº22). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, Statistical lab., Departament of Education.
  • Yuste, C. (1988). BADYG-E. Madrid. Ciencias de la educación preescolar y especial.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet