Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Special Education
Description
The study examined how ATFIND, Mantel-Haenszel, SIBTEST, and Crossing SIBTEST function when items in the dataset are modelled to differentially advantage a lower ability focal group over a higher ability reference group. The primary purpose of the study was to examine ATFIND's usefulness as a valid subtest selection tool, but it also explored the influence of DIF items, item difficulty, and presence of multiple examinee populations with different ability distributions on both its selection of the assessment test (AT) and partitioning test (PT) lists and on all three differential item functioning (DIF) analysis procedures. The results of SIBTEST were also combined with those of Crossing SIBTEST, as might be done in practice.
ATFIND was found to be a less-than-effective matching subtest selection tool with DIF items that are modelled unidimensionally. If an item was modelled with uniform DIF or if it had a referent difficulty parameter in the Medium range, it was found to be selected slightly more often for the AT List than the PT List. These trends were seen to increase as sample size increased. All three DIF analyses, and the combined SIBTEST and Crossing SIBTEST, generally were found to perform less well as DIF contaminated the matching subtest, as well as when DIF was modelled less severely or when the focal group ability was skewed. While the combined SIBTEST and Crossing SIBTEST was found to have the highest power among the DIF analyses, it also was found to have Type I error rates that were sometimes extremely high.
ATFIND was found to be a less-than-effective matching subtest selection tool with DIF items that are modelled unidimensionally. If an item was modelled with uniform DIF or if it had a referent difficulty parameter in the Medium range, it was found to be selected slightly more often for the AT List than the PT List. These trends were seen to increase as sample size increased. All three DIF analyses, and the combined SIBTEST and Crossing SIBTEST, generally were found to perform less well as DIF contaminated the matching subtest, as well as when DIF was modelled less severely or when the focal group ability was skewed. While the combined SIBTEST and Crossing SIBTEST was found to have the highest power among the DIF analyses, it also was found to have Type I error rates that were sometimes extremely high.
ContributorsScott, Lietta Marie (Author) / Levy, Roy (Thesis advisor) / Green, Samuel B (Thesis advisor) / Gorin, Joanna S (Committee member) / Williams, Leila E (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
The Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix (C-LIM) is a new tool hypothesized to help practitioners accurately determine whether students who are administered an IQ test are culturally and linguistically different from the normative comparison group (i.e., different) or culturally and linguistically similar to the normative comparison group and possibly have Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) or other neurocognitive disabilities (i.e., disordered). Diagnostic utility statistics were used to test the ability of the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children-Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) C-LIM to accurately identify students from a referred sample of English language learners (Ells) (n = 86) for whom Spanish was the primary language spoken at home and a sample of students from the WISC-IV normative sample (n = 2,033) as either culturally and linguistically different from the WISC-IV normative sample or culturally and linguistically similar to the WISC-IV normative sample. WISC-IV scores from three paired comparison groups were analyzed using the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve: (a) Ells with SLD and the WISC-IV normative sample, (b) Ells without SLD and the WISC-IV normative sample, and (c) Ells with SLD and Ells without SLD. Results of the ROC yielded Area Under the Curve (AUC) values that ranged between 0.51 and 0.53 for the comparison between Ells with SLD and the WISC-IV normative sample, AUC values that ranged between 0.48 and 0.53 for the comparison between Ells without SLD and the WISC-IV normative sample, and AUC values that ranged between 0.49 and 0.55 for the comparison between Ells with SLD and Ells without SLD. These values indicate that the C-LIM has low diagnostic accuracy in terms of differentiating between a sample of Ells and the WISC-IV normative sample. Current available evidence does not support use of the C-LIM in applied practice at this time.
ContributorsStyck, Kara M (Author) / Watkins, Marley W. (Thesis advisor) / Levy, Roy (Thesis advisor) / Balles, John (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012