Abstract
The problem of detecting instructional sensitivity (“item basis”) in test items is considered. An illustration is given which shows that for tests with many biased items, traditional item bias detection schemes give a very poor assessment of bias. A new method is proposed instead. This method extends item response theory (IRT) by including item-specific auxiliary measurement information related to opportunity-to-learn. Item-specific variation in measurement relations across students with varying opportunity-to-learn is allowed for.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Airasian, P. W., & G. F. Madaus (1983). Linking testing and instruction.Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 103–118.
Anderson, L. W. (1985). Opportunity to learn. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Ashford, J. R., & Sowden, R. R. (1970). Multivariate probit analysis.Biometrics, 26, 535–546.
Birenbaum, M., & Tatsuoka, M. (1983). The effect of scoring systems based on the algorithm underlying the student's response patterns on the dimensionality of achievement test data of the problem solving type.Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 17–26.
Crosswhite, F. J., Dossey, J. A., Swafford, J. O., McKnight, C. C., & Cooney, T. J. (1985). Second international mathematics study summary report for the United States. Champaign, IL: Stipes.
Engelhard, G. (1986, June). Curriculum-based estimates of student achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society in Toronto, Canada.
Fisher, G. H. (1972). A measurement model for the effect of mass-media.Acta Psychologica, 36, 207–220.
Haertel, E., & Calfee, R. (1983). School achievement: Thinking about what to test.Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 119–132.
Linn, R. L., & Harnisch, D. L. (1981). Interactions between item content and group membership.Journal of Educational Measurement, 18, 109–118.
Linn, R. L., Levine, M. V., Hastings, C. N., & Wardrop, J. L. (1981). Item bias in a test of reading comprehension.Applied Psychological Measurement, 5, 159–173.
Lord, F. M. (1980).Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mehrens, W. A., & Phillips, S. E. (1986). Detecting impacts of curricular differences in achievement test data.Journal of Educational Measurement, 23, 185–196.
Miller, M. D. (1986). Time allocation and patterns of item response.Journal of Educational Measurement, 23, 147–156.
Miller, M. D., & Linn, R. L. (1988). Invariance of item parameters with variations in instructional coverage.Journal of Educational Measurement, 25, 205–219.
Mislevy, R. J. (1987). Exploiting auxiliary information about examinees in the estimation of item parameters.Applied Psychological Measurement, 11, 81–91.
Muthén, B. (1978). Contributions to factor analysis of dichotomous variables.Psychometrika, 43, 551–560.
Muthén, B. (1979). A structural probit model with latent variables.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 807–811.
Muthén, B. (1983). Latent variable structural equation modeling with categorical data.Journal of Econometrics, 22, 43–65.
Muthén, B. (1984). A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical, and continuous latent variable indicators.Psychometrika, 49, 115–132.
Muthén, B. (1987a). Some uses of structural equation modeling in validity studies: Extending IRT to external variables, In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.),Test validity (pp. 213–238). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Muthén, B. (1987b). LISCOMP.Analysis of linear structural equations with a comprehensive measurement model. Users' guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
Muthén, B., Kao, C-F., & Burstein, L. (1988).Instructional sensitivity in mathematics achievement test items: Application of a new IRT-based detection technique. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Graduate School of Education. (Accepted for publication in theJournal of Educational Measurement)
Phillips, S. E., & Mehrens, W. A. (1988). Effects of curricular differences on achievement test data at item and objective levels.Applied Measurement in Education, 1, 33–51.
Traub, R. E., & Wolfe, R. G. (1981). Latent trait theories and the assessment of education achievement. In D. C. Berliner (Ed.),Review of research in education.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Muthén, B.O. Using item-specific instructional information in achievement modeling. Psychometrika 54, 385–396 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294624
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294624