Fuentes potenciales de sesgo en una prueba de aptitud numérica

Referencias bibliográficas

• 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.
• Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language, memory, and thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Ausubel, David P., Joseph D. Novak, and Helen Hanesian . (1978) . Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc . (Trad. Cast. Psicología educativa: un punto de vista cognoscitivo. México: Trillas, 1983)
• 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 psychological 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. (2000) Idioma de aplicación y rendimiento en una prueba de comprensión verbal. Psicothema 12(2), 201-206.
• Elosua, P., López, A., Egaña, J., Artamendi, J. y Yenes, F. (Revista de Metodología de las Ciencias del Comportamiento). Funcionamiento diferencial de los ítems en la aplicación de pruebas psicológicas en entornos bilingües (En prensa).
• Fidalgo, A.M.(1994). MHDIF: A computer program for detecting uniform and nouniform differentzial item functioning with the Mantel- Haenszel procedure.[Computer program] Dpto. Psicología, Universidad de Oviedo.
• Greeno, J. G. (1980) Some examples of cognitive task analysis with instructional implications, en R.E.Snow, P. Federico y W.E: Montague (Eds.) Aptitu e, Learning an Instruction. Hillsdale, N. J. Erlbaum
• 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.
• Hambleton, R.K., Swaminathan, H. y Rogers, H.J.(1991). Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. Newbury Park: SAGE publications.
• 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.
• Kok, F.G., Mellenbergh, G.J. y Van der Flier, H.(1985). Detecting experimentally induced item bias using the iterative logit method. Journal of Educational Measurement, 2, 295-303.
• 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 Psycho ogy (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)
• Mantel, N. y Haenszel, W. (1959) Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the national cancer institute, 22, 719-748.
• 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.
• 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 pf a set 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 Dif ferential Item Functioning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(2), 301-314.
• Resnick, L.B. y Ford, W.W.(1981) The psychology of mathematics for instruction, Hillsdale, N.J. Erlbaum
• Riley, M., Greeno, J.G. y Heller, J. (1982) The development of children’s problem solving ability in arithmetic, en H.Ginsburg(ed.) The development of mathematical thinking, Nueva York: Academic Press.
• 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.
• S cheuneman, 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.
• Title, C.K.(1982). Use of judgmental methods in item bias studies. En R.A.Berk (Ed.) Handbook of methods for detecting test bias (pp.31- 63). Baltimore, MD:The John Hopkins University Press.
• Thissen, D. y Steinberg, L.(1988). Data analysis using Item Response Theory. Psychological Bulletin, 104(3), 385-395.
• Thissen, D., Steinberg, L. y Wainer, H.(1988). Usee of item response theory in the study of group differences in trace lines. En H.Wainer y H.I. Braun (Eds.) Test validity (pág. 147-169). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA
• Thissen, D., Steinberg, L. y Wainer, H. (1993). Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. En W.P. Holland y H.Wainer (Eds.) Differential item functioning (pág. 67- 113). Huillsdale, NJ: LEA
• Van der Flier, H., Mellenbergh, G.J., Adèr, H.J. y Wijn, M.(1984) An iterative item bias detection method. Journal of educational measurement, 21(2), 131-145.
• 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.
• Zorroza, J. y Sánchez Cánovas, J.(1995).Los componentes cognitivos de la capacidad matemática: Representación mental, esquemas estrategias y algoritmos. Psicológica,16, 305-320.