MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976267793 · doi:10.1177/0013164403258444

Gender and Language Differences on the Test of Workplace Essential Skills: Using Overall Mean Scores and Item-Level Differential Item Functioning Analyses

2004· article· en· W1976267793 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational and Psychological Measurement · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Professional Development and Motivation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDifferential item functioningNumeracyTest (biology)Reading (process)Developmental psychologyItem response theoryPsychometricsLiteracyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Test of Workplace Essential Skills (TOWES) assesses cognitive skills in three areas using the following three separate subscales: Reading Text, Document Use, and Numeracy inWorking-Age Adults. The sample was composed of 2,688 working-age Englishspeaking Canadians who came from a variety of settings (e.g., trades training programs, adult education centers, college programs, and athletic clubs). The relationships between subscale test performance and the demographic variables of gender and language showed there were some group differences in mean levels of performance. However, at most, these differences accounted for less than 3% of the variance in performance on any subscale. In addition, differential item functioning analyses using the BILOG-MG program showed that at the item level, little or no gender or language bias was present. Recommendations based on the findings are presented.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.297
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.113 · 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