Identifying Sources of Differential Item and Bundle Functioning on Translated Achievement Tests: A Confirmatory Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasingly, tests are being translated and adapted into different languages. Differential item functioning (DIF) analyses are often used to identify non‐equivalent items across language groups. However, few studies have focused on understanding why some translated items produce DIF. The purpose of the current study is to identify sources of differential item and bundle functioning on translated achievement tests using substantive and statistical analyses. A substantive analysis of existing DIF items was conducted by an 11‐member committee of testing specialists. In their review, four sources of translation DIF were identified. Two certified translators used these four sources to categorize a new set of DIF items from Grade 6 and 9 Mathematics and Social Studies Achievement Tests. Each item was associated with a specific source of translation DIF and each item was anticipated to favor a specific group of examinees. Then, a statistical analysis was conducted on the items in each category using SIBTEST. The translators sorted the mathematics DIF items into three sources, and they correctly predicted the group that would be favored for seven of the eight items or bundles of items across two grade levels. The translators sorted the social studies DIF items into four sources, and they correctly predicted the group that would be favored for eight of the 13 items or bundles of items across two grade levels. The majority of items in mathematics and social studies were associated with differences in the words, expressions, or sentence structure of items that are not inherent to the language and/or culture. By combining substantive and statistical DIF analyses, researchers can study the sources of DIF and create a body of confirmed DIF hypotheses that may be used to develop guidelines and test construction principles for reducing DIF on translated tests.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.106 | 0.232 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".