Methodologies for Investigating Item- and Test-Level Measurement Equivalence in International Large-Scale Assessments
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the Canadian English and French versions of the Problem-Solving Measure of the Programme for International Student Assessment 2003 were examined to investigate their degree of measurement comparability at the item- and test-levels. Three methods of differential item functioning (DIF) were compared: parametric and nonparametric item response theory and ordinal logistic regression. Corresponding derivations of these three DIF methods were investigated at the test-level to examine both differential test functioning (DTF) and the correspondence between findings at the item-level with those at the test-level. Item-level findings suggested consistency in DIF detection across methods; however, differences in effect sizes of DIF were found by each method. Test-level results revealed a high degree of consistency across DTF methods. Discrepancies were found between item- and test-level comparability analyses. Item-level analyses suggested moderate to low degrees of comparability, whereas test-level findings suggested a higher degree of comparability. Findings also indicated the direction of DIF was mixed as some DIF items favored English-speaking students and others favored French-speaking students, suggesting that DIF cancellation may explain why item-level incomparability was not detected at the test-level.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.631 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it