First Language of Test Takers and Fairness Assessment Procedures

Over the past few decades, those who take tests in the United States have exhibited increasing diversity with respect to native language. Standard psychometric procedures for ensuring item and test fairness that have existed for some time were developed when test‐taking groups were predominantly nat...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Educational measurement, issues and practice issues and practice, 2011-06, Vol.30 (2), p.25-35
Hauptverfasser: Sinharay, Sandip, Dorans, Neil J., Liang, Longjuan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 35
container_issue 2
container_start_page 25
container_title Educational measurement, issues and practice
container_volume 30
creator Sinharay, Sandip
Dorans, Neil J.
Liang, Longjuan
description Over the past few decades, those who take tests in the United States have exhibited increasing diversity with respect to native language. Standard psychometric procedures for ensuring item and test fairness that have existed for some time were developed when test‐taking groups were predominantly native English speakers. A better understanding of the potential influence that insufficient language proficiency may have on the efficacy of these procedures is needed. This paper represents a first step in arriving at this better understanding. We begin by addressing some of the issues that arise in a context in which assessments in a language such as English are taken increasingly by groups that may not possess the language proficiency needed to take the test. For illustrative purposes, we use the first‐language status of a test taker as a surrogate for language proficiency and describe an approach to examining how the results of fairness procedures are affected by inclusion or exclusion of those who report that English is not their first language in the fairness analyses. Furthermore, we explore the sensitivity of the results of these procedures, differential item functioning (DIF) and score equating, to potential shifts in population composition. We employ data from a large‐volume testing program for this illustrative purpose. The equating results were not affected by either inclusion or exclusion of such test takers in the analysis sample, or by shifts in population composition. The effect on DIF results, however, varied across focal groups.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00202.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_880374498</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ929332</ericid><sourcerecordid>2413709361</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3142-4630045ab635c0ac05342e1d7160e31f952f97a2592d062669cfec90e380e8713</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkD1PwzAQhi0EEqXwDxgi9oSzncTxgESL-oUCdCgqm2Ucp0raJsVuRPvvcQjqjJez7r3nbD0IeRgC7M59GWAWRj7lnAQEMA4ACJDgcIZ6p-Ac9YBR7LeNS3RlbQmAo5izHnocF8buvVRWq0autFfn3kK7xkKutbGerDJvLAtTaWu9gbWubHW19-amVjprjLbX6CKXG6tv_mofvY9Hi6epn75NZk-D1FcUh8QPYwoQRvIzppECqSCiIdE4YzgGTXHOI5JzJknESQYxiWOucq24yxLQCcO0j-66vTtTfzXui6KsG1O5J0WSAGVhyBM3lHRDytTWGp2LnSm20hwFBtHqEqVoJYjWimh1iV9d4uDQ2w7VplAnbPTMCaeUuPihi7-LjT7-e60Yvczm7uZ4v-MLu9eHEy_NWsSMskgsXydiSJZkmg5D8UF_AKcjhpE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>880374498</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>First Language of Test Takers and Fairness Assessment Procedures</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Education Source</source><creator>Sinharay, Sandip ; Dorans, Neil J. ; Liang, Longjuan</creator><creatorcontrib>Sinharay, Sandip ; Dorans, Neil J. ; Liang, Longjuan</creatorcontrib><description>Over the past few decades, those who take tests in the United States have exhibited increasing diversity with respect to native language. Standard psychometric procedures for ensuring item and test fairness that have existed for some time were developed when test‐taking groups were predominantly native English speakers. A better understanding of the potential influence that insufficient language proficiency may have on the efficacy of these procedures is needed. This paper represents a first step in arriving at this better understanding. We begin by addressing some of the issues that arise in a context in which assessments in a language such as English are taken increasingly by groups that may not possess the language proficiency needed to take the test. For illustrative purposes, we use the first‐language status of a test taker as a surrogate for language proficiency and describe an approach to examining how the results of fairness procedures are affected by inclusion or exclusion of those who report that English is not their first language in the fairness analyses. Furthermore, we explore the sensitivity of the results of these procedures, differential item functioning (DIF) and score equating, to potential shifts in population composition. We employ data from a large‐volume testing program for this illustrative purpose. The equating results were not affected by either inclusion or exclusion of such test takers in the analysis sample, or by shifts in population composition. The effect on DIF results, however, varied across focal groups.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0731-1745</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1745-3992</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00202.x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing Inc</publisher><subject>DIF ; Educational evaluation ; English (Second Language) ; English language ; Equated Scores ; equating ; Evaluation ; Focus Groups ; Language Proficiency ; Mantel-Haenszel ; Native Language ; Native languages ; Psychological tests ; Psychometrics ; score equity assessment ; Test Bias ; Test Items ; Test Results ; Test Wiseness ; Testing Programs ; United States</subject><ispartof>Educational measurement, issues and practice, 2011-06, Vol.30 (2), p.25-35</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2011 by the National Council on Measurement in Education</rights><rights>Copyright National Council on Measurement in Education Summer 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3142-4630045ab635c0ac05342e1d7160e31f952f97a2592d062669cfec90e380e8713</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3142-4630045ab635c0ac05342e1d7160e31f952f97a2592d062669cfec90e380e8713</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1745-3992.2011.00202.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1745-3992.2011.00202.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,1412,27905,27906,45555,45556</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ929332$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sinharay, Sandip</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dorans, Neil J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liang, Longjuan</creatorcontrib><title>First Language of Test Takers and Fairness Assessment Procedures</title><title>Educational measurement, issues and practice</title><description>Over the past few decades, those who take tests in the United States have exhibited increasing diversity with respect to native language. Standard psychometric procedures for ensuring item and test fairness that have existed for some time were developed when test‐taking groups were predominantly native English speakers. A better understanding of the potential influence that insufficient language proficiency may have on the efficacy of these procedures is needed. This paper represents a first step in arriving at this better understanding. We begin by addressing some of the issues that arise in a context in which assessments in a language such as English are taken increasingly by groups that may not possess the language proficiency needed to take the test. For illustrative purposes, we use the first‐language status of a test taker as a surrogate for language proficiency and describe an approach to examining how the results of fairness procedures are affected by inclusion or exclusion of those who report that English is not their first language in the fairness analyses. Furthermore, we explore the sensitivity of the results of these procedures, differential item functioning (DIF) and score equating, to potential shifts in population composition. We employ data from a large‐volume testing program for this illustrative purpose. The equating results were not affected by either inclusion or exclusion of such test takers in the analysis sample, or by shifts in population composition. The effect on DIF results, however, varied across focal groups.</description><subject>DIF</subject><subject>Educational evaluation</subject><subject>English (Second Language)</subject><subject>English language</subject><subject>Equated Scores</subject><subject>equating</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Focus Groups</subject><subject>Language Proficiency</subject><subject>Mantel-Haenszel</subject><subject>Native Language</subject><subject>Native languages</subject><subject>Psychological tests</subject><subject>Psychometrics</subject><subject>score equity assessment</subject><subject>Test Bias</subject><subject>Test Items</subject><subject>Test Results</subject><subject>Test Wiseness</subject><subject>Testing Programs</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>0731-1745</issn><issn>1745-3992</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkD1PwzAQhi0EEqXwDxgi9oSzncTxgESL-oUCdCgqm2Ucp0raJsVuRPvvcQjqjJez7r3nbD0IeRgC7M59GWAWRj7lnAQEMA4ACJDgcIZ6p-Ac9YBR7LeNS3RlbQmAo5izHnocF8buvVRWq0autFfn3kK7xkKutbGerDJvLAtTaWu9gbWubHW19-amVjprjLbX6CKXG6tv_mofvY9Hi6epn75NZk-D1FcUh8QPYwoQRvIzppECqSCiIdE4YzgGTXHOI5JzJknESQYxiWOucq24yxLQCcO0j-66vTtTfzXui6KsG1O5J0WSAGVhyBM3lHRDytTWGp2LnSm20hwFBtHqEqVoJYjWimh1iV9d4uDQ2w7VplAnbPTMCaeUuPihi7-LjT7-e60Yvczm7uZ4v-MLu9eHEy_NWsSMskgsXydiSJZkmg5D8UF_AKcjhpE</recordid><startdate>201106</startdate><enddate>201106</enddate><creator>Sinharay, Sandip</creator><creator>Dorans, Neil J.</creator><creator>Liang, Longjuan</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Inc</general><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201106</creationdate><title>First Language of Test Takers and Fairness Assessment Procedures</title><author>Sinharay, Sandip ; Dorans, Neil J. ; Liang, Longjuan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3142-4630045ab635c0ac05342e1d7160e31f952f97a2592d062669cfec90e380e8713</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>DIF</topic><topic>Educational evaluation</topic><topic>English (Second Language)</topic><topic>English language</topic><topic>Equated Scores</topic><topic>equating</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Focus Groups</topic><topic>Language Proficiency</topic><topic>Mantel-Haenszel</topic><topic>Native Language</topic><topic>Native languages</topic><topic>Psychological tests</topic><topic>Psychometrics</topic><topic>score equity assessment</topic><topic>Test Bias</topic><topic>Test Items</topic><topic>Test Results</topic><topic>Test Wiseness</topic><topic>Testing Programs</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sinharay, Sandip</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dorans, Neil J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liang, Longjuan</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Educational measurement, issues and practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sinharay, Sandip</au><au>Dorans, Neil J.</au><au>Liang, Longjuan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ929332</ericid><atitle>First Language of Test Takers and Fairness Assessment Procedures</atitle><jtitle>Educational measurement, issues and practice</jtitle><date>2011-06</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>25</spage><epage>35</epage><pages>25-35</pages><issn>0731-1745</issn><eissn>1745-3992</eissn><abstract>Over the past few decades, those who take tests in the United States have exhibited increasing diversity with respect to native language. Standard psychometric procedures for ensuring item and test fairness that have existed for some time were developed when test‐taking groups were predominantly native English speakers. A better understanding of the potential influence that insufficient language proficiency may have on the efficacy of these procedures is needed. This paper represents a first step in arriving at this better understanding. We begin by addressing some of the issues that arise in a context in which assessments in a language such as English are taken increasingly by groups that may not possess the language proficiency needed to take the test. For illustrative purposes, we use the first‐language status of a test taker as a surrogate for language proficiency and describe an approach to examining how the results of fairness procedures are affected by inclusion or exclusion of those who report that English is not their first language in the fairness analyses. Furthermore, we explore the sensitivity of the results of these procedures, differential item functioning (DIF) and score equating, to potential shifts in population composition. We employ data from a large‐volume testing program for this illustrative purpose. The equating results were not affected by either inclusion or exclusion of such test takers in the analysis sample, or by shifts in population composition. The effect on DIF results, however, varied across focal groups.</abstract><cop>Malden, USA</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00202.x</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0731-1745
ispartof Educational measurement, issues and practice, 2011-06, Vol.30 (2), p.25-35
issn 0731-1745
1745-3992
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_880374498
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Education Source
subjects DIF
Educational evaluation
English (Second Language)
English language
Equated Scores
equating
Evaluation
Focus Groups
Language Proficiency
Mantel-Haenszel
Native Language
Native languages
Psychological tests
Psychometrics
score equity assessment
Test Bias
Test Items
Test Results
Test Wiseness
Testing Programs
United States
title First Language of Test Takers and Fairness Assessment Procedures
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T08%3A31%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=First%20Language%20of%20Test%20Takers%20and%20Fairness%20Assessment%20Procedures&rft.jtitle=Educational%20measurement,%20issues%20and%20practice&rft.au=Sinharay,%20Sandip&rft.date=2011-06&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=25&rft.epage=35&rft.pages=25-35&rft.issn=0731-1745&rft.eissn=1745-3992&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00202.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2413709361%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=880374498&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ929332&rfr_iscdi=true