NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
ERIC Number: ED445065
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 2000-Apr
Pages: 21
Abstractor: N/A
Reference Count: N/A
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: N/A
The Effects of Using Different Language Background Indicators on SAT I DIF Analyses.
Baron, Patricia; Curley, Edward; Feigenbaum, Miriam
This study was conducted because revisions are being considered to the language questions that currently appear in the Student Descriptive Questionnaire (SDQ) of the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT). The current test includes two questions about language acquisition: (1) "What language did you learn to speak first (EFL)?" and (2) "What language do you know best (EBL)?" Data were derived from a standard SAT I administration in 1998-1999 at which 192,737 high school juniors and seniors were tested. The study began by considering the effects of using samples derived from the EBL question rather than the current EFL-derived samples for differential item functioning (DIF) analyses. The first analysis was of Mantel Haenszel (MH) FID item statistics, which indicated that additional verbally-loaded mathematics and verbal questions would be flagged as inappropriate if EBL-derived samples were used. SDQ response patterns and scaled score data for several racial/ethnic groups were also examined to see if these data suggested any reasons for concern. Findings suggest that if the EFL question remains as it is now worded, then no change to current SAT I procedures would be necessary. The answers A (English only) and B (English and another language) to the EFL question would continue to define the target population for SAT I DIF analyses. If the EFL questions were dropped from the SDQ, then the analyses in this study would suggest, chiefly as a result of Asian American response patterns, that EBL A is better than EBL A and B to define the target population. However, for the Hispanic group, it would be undesirable to exclude the EBL B group from SAT I DIF analyses. It seems that the EBL question as it currently appears is inappropriate to define the target population for SAT I DIF analyses no matter which responses are used. Some suggestions are offered for additional research. (Contains 11 tables and 4 figures.) (SLD)
Publication Type: Reports - Research; Speeches/Meeting Papers
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers - Assessments and Surveys: Student Descriptive Questionnaire