180 likes | 293 Views
Item Analyses by Disability Category. Ross Moen, Martha Thurlow, Kentaro Kato October 11, 2007 PARA TAC Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment (PARA):
E N D
Item Analyses by Disability Category Ross Moen, Martha Thurlow, Kentaro Kato October 11, 2007 PARA TAC Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment (PARA): A collaboration between the University of Minnesota’sNational Center on Educational Outcomes and the Department of Curriculum & Instruction; CRESST, University of California, Davis; and Westat www.readingassessment.info
Data– Item responses from 3rd and 5th graders (approx. 60,000 for each grade) in a state reading assessment (46 multiple-choice items for each grade) Comparison– Students without disabilities vs. students with SLI, LD, or EBD Analysis– Multistep multinomial logistic regression (DIF/DDF) and multistep binary logistic regression (differential missing response functioning); Items with p > .01 and R2 difference > .003 are flagged for potential item bias; Response characteristic curves (RCCs) were plotted Methodology
Observation #1 • Statistically significant DIF/DDF was found for numerous items for all 3 groups of students with disabilities in both grades. • Large N can make even trivial differences statistically significant, so a more stringent criterion of R2> .003 was applied. • In both grades, only students with LD had items meeting the more stringent .003 criterion. For students with SLI and EBD, .003 is not even on the scale.
Figure 1. DIF/DDF R2 difference between students without disabilities and students with LD for grade 3
Figure 2. DIF/DDF R2 difference between students without disabilities and students with SLI for grade 3
Figure 3. DIF/DDF R2 difference between students without disabilities and students with EBD for grade 3
Observation #2 • Response characteristic curves suggest that not all DIF/DDF indicates bias against students with disabilities. • Examining RCCs for 4 third grade items where a distractor contributes nearly as much or more as the correct response to DIF/DDF for students with LD illustrates this.
RCCs for Item #6 A0 through D0 = students without disabilities; A1 through D1 = students with LD; the correct response is B
RCCs for Item #25 A0 through D0 = students without disabilities; A1 through D1 = students with LD; the correct response is B
RCCs for Item #42 A0 through D0 = students without disabilities; A1 through D1 = students with LD; the correct response is B
RCCs for Item #48 A0 through D0 = students without disabilities; A1 through D1 = students with LD; the correct response is C
Questions #1 • What interpretations might be made to account for these differences? • Does the test performance of students with LD look different from other students in ways besides DIF/DDF?
Final Question • Do these observations – based on these data – merit further examination?