研究生: |
王嘉寧 Wang Chia-Ning |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
影響試題差異功能的試題特徵探討─以90-95年國中基本學力測驗地理科試題為例 |
指導教授: |
陳柏熹
Chen, Po-Hsi |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
教育心理與輔導學系 Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling |
論文出版年: | 2007 |
畢業學年度: | 95 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 153 |
中文關鍵詞: | DIF 、試題特徵 、國中基本學力測驗 |
英文關鍵詞: | Item characteristic of geography test of the Basic Competence Test, Differential Item Functioning, DIF |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:181 下載:93 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
本研究主要目的是以MH法及Rasch定題法分析90-95年國中基本學力測驗社會科地理試題的試題差異功能(differential item functioning; DIF),並改編地理科測驗來操弄試題的文字及圖片屬性,以了解試題屬性對DIF程度之影響。研究結果顯示:
1. 在90-95年國中基本學力測驗社會科的地理試題中,有DIF現象的試題目約佔地理科試題總題數的二成,其中大部份為輕度的DIF試題。
2.從90-95年國中基本學力測驗社會科地理試題以及研究者自行設計的地理科測驗中所進行的DIF分析顯示,當試題中含有與受試者所居住的地區特性相關的「特定文字」時,其DIF試題比例會高於其它類型的試題。對MH法及Rasch定題法之偵測結果進行羅吉斯迴歸分析時,顯示試題的上述「特定文字」能有效預測DIF試題的發生。
研究者建議地理科試題中若含有與受試者所居住的地區特性相關的「特定文字」時,易造成不同試題有DIF現象,亦即這些題目可能會影響測驗的公平性。因此試題中的文字內容應盡量避免涉及特定地點或區域的事物、場所、活動、生活經驗等「特定文字」。
This research is to analyze the responses of geography test of the Basic Competence Test (BCTEST) in order to find out its Differential Item Functioning (DIF). Besides, the research operate the word and picture features of the items in order to understand the influence on the degree of DIF by Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method and Constant Item (CI) method. The results showed that, 1) The result point out that there are more items that are disadvantageous to the students who lived in eastern area in Taiwan, and the DIF proportion with specific writing is higher than the general writing; 2) The results by Logistic Regression analysis pointed out that the “word feature” forecast “the region DIF” effectively. The researcher suggests “the specific writing” is easy to create the DIF phenomenon between the different regions, therefore, it should avoid the writing content involving the specific place, the region, the goods, the activity, the experience of life and so on “the specific writing” in items of geography test.
參考書目
一、中文部份
王文中,陳雪珠(1999)。教學觀點量表之發展與試題反應分析。應用心理研究,2,181-207頁。
王振世(1997)。不同計分方式對DIF呈現的影響。發表於第三屆兩岸心理與教育測驗學術研討會。
李信宏(1999)。傳統檢定試題偏差(DIF)方法的改良與分析。彰化縣:國立彰化師範大學。(行政院國家科學委員會報告,NSC 89-2118-M-018 -003)。
李薰楓、黃朝恩譯(1997):生活化地理—美國國家地理科課程標準1994年。台北,教育部。
余民寧(1993),「試題反應理論的介紹(十三):試題偏差的診斷」。研習資訊, 10(6),7-11頁。
余民寧、謝進昌(2006)。國中基本學力測驗之DIF的實徵分析:以91年度兩次測驗為例。國立高雄師範大學教育學系教育學刊,26,241-276頁。
阮琦雯(2006/07/04)。國中基測PR值二十五以下。中華日報網路新聞。http://www.cdnnews.com.tw/20060705/news/nxyzh/T90012002006070418523083.htm。
林坤昌(1998)。DIF檢定方法之探討與比較。國立台中教育大學國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台中市。
林志成(2006/08/25)。基測量尺計分將全面檢討。中國時報。http://news.chinatimes.com/Chinatimes/newslist/newslist-content/0,3546,110519+112006082500403,00.html。
林明弘(2000)。從面積觀點檢定DIF試題之存在。國立彰化師範大學數學系碩士論文。
林奕宏、林世華(2004)。國小高年級數學科成就測驗中與性別有關的DIF現象。台東大學教育學報,15(1),67-96頁。
翁禎霞(2005/06/20)。屏東四成考生基測差 拼第二次。聯合報。
秦葆琦(1997)。國民小學社會科新課程概說。台北:台灣省國民學校教師研
習會。
教育部(2000)。國民中小學九年一貫課程試辦工作輔導手冊:Q&A問題與解答篇。台北市:教育部。
教育部(2004)。教育部九十四年度推動教育優先區計畫。引自http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/EDU_MGT/EJE/EDU5147002/94first/data/01.doc
曹仁德、梁忠銘(2002)。台灣師資培育制度變遷之考察--師範院校? 教育院系所培育機構的變革--。台東師院學報,13(下),211-240頁。
陳明終(1996)。能力測驗試題偏誤之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文,未出版。
國中基本學力測驗推動工作委員會試題研究組(2006)。國民中學學生基本學力測驗試題說明。引自http://www.bctest.ntnu.edu.tw/exam/Description.pdf
曾建銘(2005)。數學科區域性試題差別功能(DIF)之分析與硏究 : 以93年第一次國中基本 學測數學科試題為例。臺中縣豐原市 : 敎育部臺灣省中等學校敎師硏習會。
黃以敬(2003)。國中基測 城鄉差距逐年縮小。自由時報電子新聞網。引自http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2003/new/sep/9/today-life4.htm。
黃財尉、李信宏(1999)。國中數學成就測驗性別DIF之探討:Poly-SIBTEST的應用與分析。測驗年刊,46(2),45-60頁。
張錦弘、孫蓉華(2005/06/07)。九年一貫 接受檢驗,國中基測 城鄉差距未改善,教改九年一貫課程實施後 首次國中畢業生應試 近10萬人總分不到100 滿分人數北市最多 15個縣市無人滿分。聯合報,A1版。
張麗麗(1995)。城鄉、性別與教學差異對試題偏差指標的影響與四種試題偏差探查方法的比較。屏東市:國立屏東教育大學。(行政院國家科學委員會報告,NSC84-2421-H153-001)。
葉雅俐(2001)。以概率比法探討兩種量尺限制在試題反應理論的差異試題功能檢定之效果。國立中正大學心理學研究所碩士論文,未出版。
臺北市政府教育局(2004)。臺北市九十三年國中基測成績組距。http://163.21.249.242/News/News.asp?iPage=5&UnitId=140&NewsId=10983
潘宜均(2006)。我國國中地理科基本學力測驗試題以及學生基本能力之評鑑研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系碩士論文,未出版。
鄭富森(1998)。淺談國中基本學力測驗之評鑑原則。測驗與輔導,150,3119~3125。
鄧天德、陳源在、徐榮崇(1996)。國小學生地圖應用能力之調查與研究。台北市立師範學院學報,27,17-43。
劉秋燕(2003)。台北縣六年級學童地圖能力及地圖學習態度與方法之研究。國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
盧雪梅(1999)。應用Bootstrap法評估Mantel-Haenszel DIF統計數的抽樣變異。測驗年刊,46(2),33-44頁。
盧雪梅(2000)。Mantel-Haenszel DIF程序之第一類型錯誤率和DIF嚴重度分類結果研究。測驗年刊,47(1),57-71頁。
韓國棟(2005/05/24)。台東縣基測六成沒百分 九年一貫 拉大城鄉差距?中國時報,C8版。
戴麗紅(1995)。大學入學考試試題偏誤之研究─試題特徵曲線法和Mantel-Haenszel法之比較。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文,未出版。
簡茂發、劉湘川、許天維、郭伯臣、殷志文(1995)。以Mantel-Haenszel法檢定試題區別功能之相關因素探討。測驗年刊,42,85-102頁。
羅智華(2006)。教育資源分配 符合公平為要-由偏遠學校談起。http://www.merit-times.com.tw/list.asp?unid=16671。
蘇雅蕙(2002)。多分題差異試題功能之檢定。國立中正大學心理學研究所碩士論文,未出版。
蘇雅蕙、王文中(2001)。三種Mantel-Haenszel DIF檢驗程序的效果。發表於第五屆華人社會心理與教育測驗學術研討會。
二、英文部分
ACER(1999). ConQuest-Generalized Item Response Modeling Software. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 13(3), 711-711.
http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt133.htm (visited 3/10/03).
Angoff, W. H., & Ford, S. F. (1973). Item-Race Interaction on a Test of Scholastic Aptitude. Journal of Educational Measurement, 10(2), 95-107.
Angoff, W. H. (1993). Perspectives on differential item functioning. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential Item Functioning (pp. 3-23). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Caradall, C., & Coffman, W. E. (1964). A method for comparing the performance of different groups on the item in a test (College Entrance Examination Board Research and Development Report 64-5, No.9 ; ETS Research Bulletin 64-61). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Cheng, C. M. (2005). A study on Differential Item Functioning (DIF) of the Basic Mathematical Competence Test for Junior High Schools in Taiwan. Unpolished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.
Clauser, B., Mazor, K. & Hambleton, R. K. (1994). The effects of score group width on the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31(1), 67-78.
Donoghue, J. R., Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1993). A Monte Carlo study of factors that affect the Mantel-Haenszel and standardization measures of differential item functioning. In P.W. Holland and H. Wainer (Eds.) Differential item functioning (pp. 137-166). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dorans, N. J., & Holland, P. W. (1993). DIF detection and description: Mantel-Haenszel and standardization. In P. W. Holland and H. Wainer (Eds.). Differential Item Functioning (pp.35-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fidalgo, A. M., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Muniz, J. (2000). Effects of amount of DIF, test length, and purification type on robustness and power of Mantel-Haenszel procedures. Methods of Psychological Research, 5(3), 43-53.
Finch, H (2005). The MIMIC model as a method for detecting DIF: Comparison with Mantel-Haenszel, SIBTEST, and the IRT likelihood ratio. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 278-295.
Hambleton, R. K., & Rogers, H. J. (1989). Detecting Potentially Biased Test Items: Comparison of IRT Area and Mantel-Haenszel Methods. Applied Measurement in Education, 2(4), 313-334.
Hills, J. R. (1989). Screening for potentially biased items in testing programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 8, 5-11.
Holland, P. W. (1985). On the study of Differential item Performance without IRT. Proceedings of the Military Testing Association, October.
Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun(Eds.), Test Validity(pp.129-145). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Landis, R. J., Hyman, E. R., & Kock, G. G. (1978). Average partial association in three-way contingency tables: A review and discussion of alternative tests. International Statistical Review, 46, 237-254.
Lehman, J. D. (1986). Opportunity to learn and differential item functioning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angles.
Linn, R. L., & Harnisch D. L. (1981). Interactions between item content and group membership on achievement test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 18, 109-118.
Lord, F. M. (1980). Application of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lu, S., & Dunbar, S. B. (1997). The effects of item characteristics on the Mantel-Haenszel and standardization DIF statistics. Paper presented in the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Mellenbergh, G. J. (1982). Contingency tale models for assessing item bias. Journal of Educational Statistics, 7, 105-118.
Narayanan, P., & Swaminathan, H. (1994). Performance of the Mantel-Haenszel and simultaneous item bias procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 315-328.
Phillips, A., & Holland, P. W. (1987). Estimation of the variance of the Mantel-Haenszel log-odds-ratio estimate. Biometrics, 43, 425-431.
Raju, N. S., Bode, R. K., & Larsen, V. S. (1989). An empirical analysis of the Mantel-Haenszel statistic for studying differential item performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 2, 1-13.
Ramsay, J. O. (1991). Kernel smoothing approaches to nonparametric item characteristic curve estimation, Psychometrika, 56, 611-630.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligent and attainment Tests. Copenhagen: Danmarks Paedogogiske Institut.
Robins, J., Breslow, N., & Greendland, S. (1986). Estimators of the Mantel-Haenszel variance consistent in both sparse data and large-strata limiting models. Biometrics, 42, 311-323.
Rogers, H. J., & Swaminathan, H. (1993). A comparison of logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 105-116.
Roussos, L., & Stout, W. (1996). Simulation studies of effects of small sample size and studied item parameters on SIBTEST and Mantel-Haenszel Type I error performance. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 215-230.
Rudner, L. M. (1977). An approach to biased item identification using latent trait measurement theory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Scheuneman, J. D. (1979). A method of assessing bias in test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 16, 143-152.
Schmitt, A. P., & Dorans, N. J. (1990). Differential item functioning for minority examinees on the SAT. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(1), 67-81.
Shealy, R., & Stout, W. (1993). A model-based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF form group ability differences and detects test bias/DTF as well as bias/DIF. Psychometrika, 58, 159-194.
Shih, C.-L., & Wang, W.-C. (2006). DIF Detection using the MIMIC Method with a Pure Short Anchor. Paper submitted for publication.
Swaminathan. H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 361-370.
Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1993). Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 35-113). Hillsadle, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Waller, N.(1998). EZDIF: EZManual.
http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/depts/psych_and_hd/faculty/wallern.(visited 03/03/14).
Wang, W.-C., & Shih, C.-L. (2006). The MIMIC Method with scale purification procedure for detecting differential item functioning. Paper submitted for publication.
Wang, W.-C., & Su, Y.-H. (2004). Factors Influencing the Mantel and generalized Mantel-Haenszel methods for the assessment of differential item functioning in polytomous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28, 450-480.
Wang, W.-C., & Yeh, Y.-L. (2003). Effects of anchor item methods on differential item functioning detection with the likelihood ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 479-498.
Wang, W.-C. (2004). Effects of anchor item methods on the detection of differential item functioning within the family of Rasch models. Journal of Experimental Education, 72, 221-261.
Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., & Wilson, M. R. (1998). ACER ConQuest: generalized item response modeling software manual. Quintec Group Pty Ltd.
Zenisky, A. L., & Hambleton, R. K. (2003). Detection of differential item functioning in large-scale state assessments: A study evaluating a two-stage approach. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(1), 51-64.
Zieky, M. (1993). Practical questions in the use of DIF statistics in test development. In P.W. Holland and H. Wainer (Eds.) Differential item functioning (pp. 337-347). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.