This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Kim, M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Detecting DIF across the different language groups in a speaking test

University of California, Los Angeles, kimmi{at}ucla.edu

The investigation of differential item functioning (DIF) is crucial in language proficiency tests in which test-takers with diverse backgrounds are involved, because DIF items pose a considerable threat to the validity of tests. To date, DIF analysis in language testing has been conducted mainly for multiple-choice items. However, examining DIF with polytomous response items such as in writing and speaking tests should also be taken into consideration for validating tests. This study aims to investigate DIF across two different broad language groupings, Asian and European, in a speaking test in which the test-takers’ responses are rated polytomously. Data in this study were collected from 1038 nonnative speakers of English from France, Hong Kong, Japan, Spain, Switzerland and Thailand who took the SPEAK test in 1988 (see Educational Testing Service, 1985). The methods used for DIF analysis were the likelihood ratio test and the logistic regression procedure. The primary scoring categories of interest in this study were ‘grammar’, ‘pronunciation’ and ‘fluency.’ The results showed that ‘grammar’ and ‘pronunciation’ functioned differentially across the two groups. A content analysis of the DIF items suggested that the types and the numbers of scoring scales might influence the test validity. The study provides methodological information on differences between two approaches to DIF analysis and suggestions for future research.

Language Testing, Vol. 18, No. 1, 89-114 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/026553220101800104


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. M. Woods Empirical Selection of Anchors for Tests of Differential Item Functioning Applied Psychological Measurement, January 1, 2009; 33(1): 42 - 57. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. F. French and S. J. Maller Iterative Purification and Effect Size Use With Logistic Regression for Differential Item Functioning Detection Educational and Psychological Measurement, June 1, 2007; 67(3): 373 - 393. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Huhta, P. Kalaja, and A. Pitkanen-Huhta Discursive construction of a high-stakes test: the many faces of a test-taker Language Testing, July 1, 2006; 23(3): 326 - 350. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. Uiterwijk and T. Vallen Linguistic sources of item bias for second generation immigrants in Dutch tests Language Testing, April 1, 2005; 22(2): 211 - 234. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S.-K. Shin Did they take the same test? Examinee language proficiency and the structure of language tests Language Testing, January 1, 2005; 22(1): 31 - 57. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. M. Fidalgo, D. Ferreres, and J. MuNiz Utility of the Mantel-Haenszel Procedure for Detecting Differential Item Functioning in Small Samples Educational and Psychological Measurement, December 1, 2004; 64(6): 925 - 936. [Abstract] [PDF]