MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969608664 · doi:10.1207/s15324818ame1703_4

Comparability of Bilingual Versions of Assessments: Sources of Incomparability of English and French Versions of Canada's National Achievement Tests

2004· article· en· W1969608664 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Measurement in Education · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComparabilityDifferential item functioningPsychologyReading (process)Item response theoryPsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyLinguisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This research examined the degree of comparability and sources of incomparability of English and French versions of reading, mathematics, and science tests that were administered as part of a survey of achievement in Canada. The results point to substantial psychometric differences between the 2 language versions. Approximately 18% to 36% of the items were identified as differentially functioning for the 2 language groups. Large proportions of these differential item functioning (DIF) items, 36% to 100% across age groups and content areas, were attributed to adaptation related differences. A smaller proportion, 27% to 33% of the DIF items, was attributed to curricular differences. Twenty-four to 49% of DIF items could not be attributed to either of the 2 sources considered in the study.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.272
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.155 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it