On Replicating Ethnic Test Bias Effects: The Santelices and Wilson Study

Autor/in	Freedle, Roy O.
Titel	On Replicating Ethnic Test Bias Effects: The Santelices and Wilson Study
Quelle	In: Harvard Educational Review, 80 (2010) 3, S.394-404 (11 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0017-8055
Schlagwörter	Stellungnahme; College Entrance Examinations; Test Bias; Test Items; Difficulty Level; Ethnic Groups; Replication (Evaluation); African Americans; Whites; Reading Comprehension; Logical Thinking; Mathematics; SAT (College Admission Test) + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Aufnahmeprüfung; Testkritik; Test content; Testaufgabe; Schwierigkeitsgrad; Ethnie; Afroamerikaner; White; Weißer; Leseverstehen; Mathematik
Abstract	In this commentary, the author discusses two recent replications (Santelices & Wilson, 2010; Scherbaum & Goldstein, 2008) of some of his earlier work on SAT items using the differential item functioning (DIF) statistic wherein he contrasted the test performance of African American examinees with White examinees (Freedle, 2003). In this commentary, it becomes clear how each of these two replications covers different aspects of the DIF statistic and addresses criticisms of his work. These replication studies find, in general, that whenever a significant ethnic correlation occurs between DIF and item difficulty, regardless of the item type, the African American group is found to perform differentially better on hard items than White examinees of matched ability and differentially worse than White examinees on easy items. As Scherbaum and Goldstein (2008) claim, this DIF correlation represents a counterintuitive finding, given the test bias found in previous studies (Freedle, 2003, p. 2; Gould, 1995). The author briefly advances a hypothesis explaining why this DIF correlation result is so counterintuitive. While Santelices and Wilson's (2010) findings for the verbal SAT items replicate the general pattern of DIF results the author reported (Freedle, 2003), there are some differences between these two studies when one focuses on particular item types. The author focuses on these differences because he believes they will put researchers on a path toward building a deeper theoretical understanding of the sources of test bias, at least at the individual item level. He also reviews the Scherbaum and Goldstein (2008) DIF replication study that used non-SAT content to address the assertion that his significant DIF findings (Freedle, 2003) represent a statistical artifact (see Wainer & Skorupski, 2005). Finally, he addresses some strategies for reducing mean test score differences between minority and White examinees. (Contains 2 notes.) (ERIC).
Anmerkungen	Harvard Education Publishing Group. 8 Story Street First Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138. Tel: 617-495-3432; Fax: 617-496-3584; e-mail: hepg@harvard.edu; Web site: http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hepg/her.html
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10