Exploring plausible causes of differential item functioning in the PISA science assessment: language, curriculum or culture
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 recent years, large-scale international assessments have been increasingly used to evaluate and compare the quality of education across regions and countries. However, measurement variance between different versions of these assessments often posts threats to the validity of such cross-cultural comparisons. In this study, we investigated the cross-language, cross-cultural validity of the Programme for International Student Assessment 2006 Science assessment via three differential item functioning (DIF) analyses between the USA and Canada, Chinese Hong Kong and mainland China, and between the USA and mainland China. Furthermore, we explored three plausible causes of DIF via content analysis, namely language, curriculum and cultural differences. Our results revealed that differential curriculum coverage was the most serious cause of DIF among the three factors we investigated in this study, and differential content familiarity also contributed to DIF here. We discussed the implications of the findings for future international assessment development, and for how to best define 'scientific literacy' for students around the world.</br>[Copyright of Educational Psychology is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website: </br>http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.946890]
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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