Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

PISA 2009 ÖĞRENCİ ANKETİ ALT ÖLÇEKLERİNDE (Q32-Q33) BULUNAN MADDELERİN DEĞİŞEN MADDE FONKSİYONU AÇISINDAN İNCELENMESİ

Journal Name:

  • Kastamonu Üniversitesi Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2015

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
This study was aimed to assess items of PISA-2009 student questionnaire’s subscales of “sense of school learnings” and “sense of teachers” in terms of differential item functioning by using gender and 4 different country data comperatively. For the DIF analysis, likelihood ratio test was preferred in graded response theory based on item response theory (IRT) because of polytomously scored items. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used for data sets saperately to test the unidimensionality assumption of IRT. CFA analysis showed that unifactorial construct of subtests was confirmed and unidimensionality assumption of IRT was met. DIF analysis were carried out by MULTILOG software and 2 items for gender, 1 item for Ireland-GBR sample, 2 items for USA-GBR sample and 4 items for Turkey-USA sample was flagged as DIF in the subscale of “sense of school learnings”. In the subscale of “sense of teachers”, 1 item for gender, 1 item for Ireland-GBR sample, 2 items for USA-GBR sample and4 items for USA-Turkey sample were flagged as DIF.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu araştırmada PISA-2009 öğrenci anketinde bulunan okula ve öğretmenlere ilişki algı alt testlerinde yer alan maddelerin DMF açısından 4 farklı ülke (Türkiye, ABD, İrlanda ve İngiltere) ve cinsiyete göre ele alınarak karşılaştırmalı olarak araştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada kullanılan maddeler çoklu puanlandığı için DMF analizinde aşamalı tepki modeli altında kullanılan olabilirlik oranı testi (likelihood ratio test) tercih edilmiştir. DMF analizlerine geçmeden önce öncelikle MTK’nın tek boyutluluk varsayımı test edilmiş ve veri gruplarına ayrı ayrı DFA uygulanmıştır. DFA analizleri sonucunda alt testler için test edilen tak faktörlü ölçme modelinin doğrulandığı ve MTK’nın tek boyutluluk varsayımının karşılandığı ortaya konmuştur. Ölçeklerdeki maddelerde DMF bulunup bulunmadığı MULTILOG programı yazılımı ile analiz edilmiş ve okul öğrenmelerine ilişkin algı alt ölçeğinde cinsiyete göre 2, IRL-ING örneklemlerinde 1, ABD-İngiltere’de 2 ve ABD-Türkiye’de 4 maddede, öğretmenlere yönelik algı alt ölçeğinde ise cinsiyete göre 1, İrlanda-İngiltere örneklemlerinde 1, ABD-İngiltere’de 2 ve ABD-Türkiye’de 4 maddede DMF bulunduğu istatistiksel olarak ortaya konmuştur.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-pisa-2009-ogrenci-anketi-alt-olceklerinde-q32-q33-bulunan-maddelerin-degisen-madde-fonksiyonu-acisindan-incelenmesi.pdf
  • 1
227
240
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

Asil, M. ve Gelbal, S. (2012). PISA öğrenci anketinin kültürler arası eşdeğerliği. Eğitim ve
Bilim, 37(166), 236-249.
Atalay, K. (2010). PISA 2006 öğrenci anketinde yer alan tutum maddelerinin değişen madde fonksiyonu
açısından incelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Ackerman, T.A. (1992). A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact and item validity
from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29(1), 67-91.
Bolt, D.M. (2002). A Monte Carlo comparison of parametric and nonparametric polytomous
DIF detection methods. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(2), 113-141.
Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative
approaches to testing for the factorial validty of a measuring instrument. International
Journal of Testing, 1(1), 55-86.
Byrne, B.M., Shavelson, R.J. ve Muthen, B. (1989). Testingfor the equivalence of factor covariance
and mean structures: the issueof partial measurement invariance. Psychological
Bulletin, 105 (3), 456-466.
Camilli, G. veShepard, L.A. (1994). Methods for Identifying Biased Test Items. ThousandOaks.
Sage Publications.
Cohen, A.S., Kim, A.H. and Baker, F.B. (1993). Detection of differential item functioning in the graded
response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17(4), 335-350.
Embretson, S.E. and Reise, S.P. (2000). Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc., New Jersey, USA.
Gillapsy, J.A. (1996). A Primer on Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.
(Eric document reproduction service no: ED 395 040).
Hableton, R.K. and Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item Response Theory. Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing, MA, USA.
Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H. and Rogers, H. (1991). Fundamentals of Item Response
Teory. Newbury Park CA: Sage.
Hu, L. & Bentler, P.M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural Equation
Modeling: Concepts, Issues and Applications (pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lautenschlager, G.J., Flaherty, V.L. and Park, D.G. (1994). IRT Differential item functioning: An
examination of ability scale purifications. Educational and Psychological MeasureMent, 54, 21.
Lee, K. (2003). Parametric and Nonparametric IRT Models for Assessing Differential Item
Functioning. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Wayne State University, USA.
238 İbrahim Alper KÖSE...
Ocak 2015 Cilt:23 No:1 Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi
Kamata, A. and Vaughn, B. (2004). An introduction to Differential item functioning analysis.
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 2(7), 49-69.
Kim, S.H. ve Cohen, A.S. (1998). Detection of differential item functioning under the graded response
model with the likelihood ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 345-355.
Maij-de Meij, A.M., Kelderman, H. and van der Flier, H. (2010). Improvement in detection
ofdifferential item functioning using a mixture item response theory model. Multivaria-te
Behavioral Research, 45, 975-999.
McDonald, R.P. (1982). Linear versus models in item response theory Applied
Psychological Measurement, 6, 379-396.
MEB (2009). PISA 2009 Uluslararası Öğrenci Değerlendirme Programı Ulusal Ön Rapor. MEB, Ankara.
Messick, (1989). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment.
Educational Researcher, 18(2), 5-11.
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent trait ability using a response pattern of graded scores.
Psychometrika Monograph, No: 17.
Sheng, Y. (2005). Bayesian Analysis of Hierarchical IRT models: Comparing and Combining
the Unidimensional and Multidimensional IRT models. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.
University of Missouri-Columbia.
Sijstma, K. & Hemker, B.T. (2000). A taxonomy of IRT models for ordering persons anditems
using simple sum scores. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 25 (4), 391-415.
Stapleton, C. D. (1997). Basic concepts in exploratory factor analysis as a tool to evaluate score validity:
A right-brained approach. 25Kasım 2006 tarihinde http://ericea.net/ft/tamu/Efa.htmadreinden erişildi.
Taub, G. E. (2001). A confirmatory analysis of the wechsleradult intelligence scale-third edition: is the
verbal/ performance discrepancy justified?Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 7(22).
Thissen, D., Steinberg, L. and Gerard, M. (1986). Beyond man group differences: The concept
of item bias. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 118-128.
Zumbo, B.D. (1999). A Handbook on the Theory and Methods of Differential Item Functioning (DIF): Logistic
Regression Modeling as a Unitary Framework for Binary and Likert-Type (Ordinal) Item Scores. Ottawa,
ON: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com