MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Differential Functioning of Reading Subskills on the OSSLT for L1 and ELL Students: A Multidimensionality Model‐Based DBF/DIF Approach

2009· article· en· W2089753006 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

VenueLanguage Learning · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDifferential item functioningLiteracyCurriculumReading (process)Language proficiencyEllMathematics educationVocabularyContext (archaeology)Item response theoryConfirmatory factor analysisTest (biology)Item analysisLinguisticsPedagogyTeaching methodVocabulary developmentDevelopmental psychologyStructural equation modelingPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing numbers of English language learners (ELLs) in Canadian schools pose a significant challenge to the standards‐based provincial tests used to measure proficiency levels of all students from various linguistic and cultural backgrounds. This study investigated the extent to which reading item bundles or items on the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT) function differentially for Grade 10 students who speak only or mostly English at home (first language [L1] students; n = 1,969) and those whose home language is something other than English (ELL students; n = 3,675). Based on Roussos and Stout's (1996a) multidimensionality‐based DIF analysis paradigm, a variety of substantive and statistical techniques were employed: (a) content review by English as a second language (ESL) experts, (b) exploratory and confirmatory dimensionality analyses, and (c) confirmatory differential bundle functioning (DBF)/differential item functioning (DIF) procedures. The evidence gathered in the study indicated that items associated with vocabulary knowledge favored L1 students, whereas items requiring grammatical knowledge or integrated reading and writing skill favored ELL students. Instructional implications for the promotion of effective literacy education programs are discussed, as is the development of a literacy curriculum that can meet the needs of linguistically diverse learners in a multilingual context.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.300 · 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