探究偏差:用项目反应曲线比较人群

Q3 Mathematics
P. Walter, E. Nuhfer, Crisel Suárez
{"title":"探究偏差:用项目反应曲线比较人群","authors":"P. Walter, E. Nuhfer, Crisel Suárez","doi":"10.5038/1936-4660.14.1.1357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We introduce an approach for making a quantitative comparison of the item response curves (IRCs) of any two populations on a multiple-choice test instrument. In this study, we employ simulated and actual data. We apply our approach to a dataset of 12,187 participants on the 25-item Science Literacy Concept Inventory (SLCI), which includes ample demographic data of the participants. Prior comparisons of the IRCs of different populations addressed only two populations and were made by visual inspection. Our approach allows for quickly comparing the IRCs for many pairs of populations to identify those items where substantial differences exist. For each item, we compute the IRC dot product, a number between 0 and 1 for which a value of 1 occurs when the IRCs of the two populations are identical. We then determine whether the value of the IRC dot product is indicative of significant differences in populations of real students. Through this process, we can quickly discover bias across demographic groups. As a case example, we apply our metric to illuminate four SLCI items that exhibit gender bias. We further found that gender bias was present for non-science majors on those items but not for science majors.","PeriodicalId":36166,"journal":{"name":"Numeracy","volume":"14 1","pages":"2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Probing for Bias: Comparing Populations Using Item Response Curves\",\"authors\":\"P. Walter, E. Nuhfer, Crisel Suárez\",\"doi\":\"10.5038/1936-4660.14.1.1357\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We introduce an approach for making a quantitative comparison of the item response curves (IRCs) of any two populations on a multiple-choice test instrument. In this study, we employ simulated and actual data. We apply our approach to a dataset of 12,187 participants on the 25-item Science Literacy Concept Inventory (SLCI), which includes ample demographic data of the participants. Prior comparisons of the IRCs of different populations addressed only two populations and were made by visual inspection. Our approach allows for quickly comparing the IRCs for many pairs of populations to identify those items where substantial differences exist. For each item, we compute the IRC dot product, a number between 0 and 1 for which a value of 1 occurs when the IRCs of the two populations are identical. We then determine whether the value of the IRC dot product is indicative of significant differences in populations of real students. Through this process, we can quickly discover bias across demographic groups. As a case example, we apply our metric to illuminate four SLCI items that exhibit gender bias. We further found that gender bias was present for non-science majors on those items but not for science majors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Numeracy\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"2\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Numeracy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.14.1.1357\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Mathematics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Numeracy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.14.1.1357","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Mathematics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

我们介绍了一种定量比较任意两个群体在多项选择测验工具上的项目反应曲线(IRCs)的方法。在本研究中,我们采用了模拟数据和实际数据。我们将我们的方法应用于12187名参与者的25项科学素养概念量表(SLCI)数据集,其中包括参与者的大量人口统计数据。先前对不同种群的IRCs的比较只涉及两个种群,并且是通过目视检查进行的。我们的方法允许快速比较许多对人口的irc,以确定存在重大差异的项目。对于每个项目,我们计算IRC点积,这是一个介于0到1之间的数字,当两个种群的IRC相同时,其值为1。然后我们确定IRC点积的值是否表明真实学生群体的显著差异。通过这个过程,我们可以迅速发现人口群体中的偏见。作为一个案例,我们应用我们的度量来阐明四个表现出性别偏见的SLCI项目。我们进一步发现,在这些项目上,非理科生存在性别偏见,而理科生没有。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Probing for Bias: Comparing Populations Using Item Response Curves
We introduce an approach for making a quantitative comparison of the item response curves (IRCs) of any two populations on a multiple-choice test instrument. In this study, we employ simulated and actual data. We apply our approach to a dataset of 12,187 participants on the 25-item Science Literacy Concept Inventory (SLCI), which includes ample demographic data of the participants. Prior comparisons of the IRCs of different populations addressed only two populations and were made by visual inspection. Our approach allows for quickly comparing the IRCs for many pairs of populations to identify those items where substantial differences exist. For each item, we compute the IRC dot product, a number between 0 and 1 for which a value of 1 occurs when the IRCs of the two populations are identical. We then determine whether the value of the IRC dot product is indicative of significant differences in populations of real students. Through this process, we can quickly discover bias across demographic groups. As a case example, we apply our metric to illuminate four SLCI items that exhibit gender bias. We further found that gender bias was present for non-science majors on those items but not for science majors.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Numeracy
Numeracy Mathematics-Mathematics (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信