MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407098810 · doi:10.1080/15434303.2025.2455196

Differential Item Functioning Due to Cultural Familiarity on a Large-Scale Reading Test: Does the Length of Residence Matter?

2025· article· en· W4407098810 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hyun-Ah Kim, Eunice Eunhee Jang

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage Assessment Quarterly · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDifferential item functioningPsychologyReading (process)Scale (ratio)Test (biology)ResidenceItem response theoryPsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyLinguisticsGeographySociologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated potential item bias in a large-scale grade 3 reading achievement test, specifically against culturally diverse students with limited familiarity with mainstream Canadian culture. Students were classified based on their first language and length of residence in Canada, which was used as a proxy for cultural familiarity. A multi-group differential item functioning (DIF) analysis revealed that, of the five items hypothesized by content experts to require a high level of cultural familiarity, three exhibited varying degrees of DIF across student subgroups. While the performance gap between groups tended to narrow with increased exposure to mainstream culture, significant differences persisted on items requiring substantial cultural familiarity, even among students who had resided in Canada for five years or more. These findings highlight the need to refine test development practices to ensure fairness in testing and provide more valid score interpretations for diverse populations, especially in culturally heterogeneous educational settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.360 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage Assessment QuarterlySame topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207