學習障礙學生在國中基測數學科上表現與試題差異功能分析

Differential Item Functioning Analysis for Accommodated versus Non-Accommodated Students on the Achievement of Mathematics Basic Competence Test for Junior High School Students

10.6457/BSER.201206.0045

張萬烽(Wan-Feng Chang)；吳裕益(Yuh-Yih Wu)

考場服務 ； 考試調整 ； 報讀 ； 試題差異功能 ； 學習障礙 ； test service ； test accommodation ； read aloud ； DIF ； learning disabilities

特殊教育與復健學報

26期（2012 / 06 / 01）

45 - 70

繁體中文

本研究旨在探究98學年度國中基本學力測驗數學科申請報讀之學障學生、未申請之學障學生以及一般學生等三個群體在成就表現上之差異，同時探討群體間是否存在試題差異功能（DIF）現象。研究結果顯示一般生在數學科之表現優於其他兩個群體。而在DIF偵測方面，首先在一致性DIF偵測上，發現三個群體間有明顯DIF現象之試題的出現率不高，且並未對某一群體呈現特別有利或不利的情形，另外，不同群體間雖存有非一致性DIF之現象，進一步分析試題內容向度或認知歷程均未顯示對哪一群體產生特別不利或有利的現象。上述結果顯示報讀並未對申請之學障學生在某些題目的作答上產生顯著影響，顯示報讀之考場服務，仍能夠維持考試的公平性，與未申請之學障學生在整體表現上相似，最後本研究提出建議以做為未來研究及測驗實務之參考。

The purpose of this research was to investigate the effects of audio description on the achievement of Mathematics Basic Competency Tests (MBCT). The research participants consisted of the students without disabilities (SWOD), the students with learning disabilities who asked for read aloud (LD-RA), and the students with learning disabilities who did not ask for read aloud (LD-NRA). Through the comparison of their MBCT achievement, it showed that the SWOD performed significantly better than LD-RA and LD-NRA. Furthermore, the analyses of differential item functioning (DIF) showed there was no difference in the proportions of DIF of different groups, and the reasons of the students' difference in DIF items mainly came from the content knowledge they had, instead of the read aloud they asked for. Implications based on the findings were proposed for educators, test developers, and researchers.

1. 余民寧、謝進昌(2006)。國中基本學力測驗之DIF的實徵分析。教育學刊，26，241-276。
   連結：
2. 盧雪梅(2008)。國中基本學力測驗自然科之性別差異和差別試題功能（DIF）分析。測驗學刊，55(4)，725-759。
   連結：
3. 蘇旭琳、陳柏熹(2008)。DIF分析在小樣本情境中的偵測效果-以視障生和普通生在國中基測數學科之DIF為例。測驗學刊，55(4)，761-791。
   連結：
4. 吳裕益（2009）。後設分析。未出版的手稿，國立高雄師範大學特殊教育學系，高雄市。
5. Abedi, J.,Leon, S.,Kao, J.(2008).Examining differential item functioning in reading assessments for students with disabilities.Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota, Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment.
6. Barton, K.(2004).Using DIF analyses to examine boas and assumptions of unidemensionality across students with and without disabilities and students with accommodations.the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education,San Diego, CA.:
7. Bielinski, J.,Thurlow, M.,Ysseldyke, J.,Freidebach, J.,Freidebach, M.(2001).Technical ReportTechnical Report,Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
8. Bolt, S. E.,Thurlow, M. L.(2004).Five of the most frequently allowed testing accommodations in state policy.Remedial and Special Education,25(3),141-152.
9. Bolt, S. E.,Ysseldyke, J.(2008).Accommodating students with disabilities in large-scale testing: A comparison of differential item functioning (DIF) identified across disability types.Journal of psychoeducational assessment,26(2),121-138.
10. Bolt, S. E.,Ysseldyke, J. E.(2006).Comparing DIF across math and reading/language arts tests for students receiving a readaloud accommodation.Applied Measurement in Education,19(4),329-355.
11. Bolt, S.,Bielinski, J.(2003).Isolating math item characteristics that differentially affect students with reading disabilities.the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education,Chicago, IL.:
12. Cohen, A. S.,Bolt, D. M.(2005).A mixture model analysis of differential item functioning.Journal of Educational Measurement,42,133-148.
13. Cohen, A. S.,Gregg, N.,Deng,M.(2005).The role of extended time and item content on a highstakes mathematics test.Learning disabilities,20(4),225-233.
14. Fidalgo, A.,Hashimoto, K.,Bartram, D.,Muñiz, J.(2007).Empirical Bayes versus standard Mantel-Haenszel statistics for detecting differential item functioning under small-sample conditions.The Journal of Experimental Education,75(4),293-314.
15. Fidalgo, T. M.,Ferreres, D.,MuÑiz, J.(2004).Utility of the Mantel-Haenszel Procedure for Detecting Differential Item Functioning in Small Sample.Educational and Psychological Measurement,64(6),925-936.
16. Finch, H.,Barton, K.,Meyer, P.(2009).Differential Item Functioning Analysis for Accommodated Versus Nonaccommodated Students.Educational Assessment,14(1),38-56.
17. Fuchs, L. S.,Fuchs, D.,Capizzi, A. M.(2006).Identifying appropriate test accommodations for students with learning disabilities.Focus on Exceptional Children,37(6),1-8.
18. Hidalgo, M. D.,Lopez-Pina, J. A.(2004).Differential item functioning detection and effect size: A comparison between logistic regression and Mantel-Hantel procedures.Educational and psychological measurement,64(6),903-915.
19. Hollenbeck, K.,Rozek-Tedesco, M.,Tindal, G.,Glasgrow, A.(2000).An exploratory study of student-paced versus teacher-paced accommodations for large-scale math tests.Journal of Special Education Technology,15(2),27-36.
20. Kamata, A.,Vaughn, B. K.(2004).An introduction to differential item functioning analysis.Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal,2(2),49-62.
21. Koretz, D.,Hamilton, L.(1999).CSE Technical ReportCSE Technical Report,National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, University of California.
22. Koretz, D.,Hamilton, L.(2000).Assessment of Students with Disabilities In Kentucky: Inclusion, Student Performance, and Validity.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,22(3),255-272.
23. Paek, I.,Guo, H.(2011).Accuracy of DIF and estimates and power in unbalanced designs using the Mantel-Haenszel DIF detection procedure.Applied Psychological Measurement,35,518-535.
24. Penfield, R. D.(2003).Applying the Breslow-Day test of trend in odds ratio heterogeneity to the analysis of nonuniform DIF.Alberta Journal of Educational Research,49(3),231-243.
25. Sireci, S. G.(2008).Validity issues in accommodation reading tests.Journal Pendidik dan Pendididkan,23,81-110.
26. Sireci, S. G.,Scarpati, S. E.,Li, S.(2005).Test ccommodations for students with disabilities:An analysis ofthe interaction hypothesis.Review of Educational Research,75(4),457-490.
27. Swaminathan, H.,Rogers, H. J.(1990).Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures.Journal of Educational Measurement,27,361-370.
28. Thompson, S.,Blount, A.,Thurlow, M.(2002).Technical ReportTechnical Report,Minneapolis, MN:Universityof Minnesopolis, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
29. Thurlow, M. L.,McGrew, K. S.,Tindal, G.,Thompson, S. L.,Ysseldyke, J. E.,Elliott, J. L.(2000).Technical ReportTechnical Report,Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
30. Tindal, G.,Fuchs, L.(2000).,Lexington, KY:University of Kentucky, Mid-South Regional Resource Center.
31. Waller, N. G.(1998).EZDIF: Detection of uniform and nonuniform differential item functioning with the Mantel-Haenszel and logistic regression procedures.Applied Psychological Measurement,22,391.
32. Zenisky, A. L.,Hambleton, R. K.,Frederic, R.(2003).Dectecing of differential item functioning in largescale state assessments: A study evaluating a two-stage approach.Educational and Psychological Measurement,63(1),51-64.
33. Zwick, R.,Thayer, D. T.,Lewis, C.(1999).An empirical Bayes approach to Mantel-Haenszel DIF analysis.Journal of Educational Measurement,36,1-28.
34. 王嘉寧(2006)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北市，臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系。
35. 余民寧(2009)。試題反應理論IRT及其應用。臺北市:心理。
36. 吳裕益(2007)。心理與教育統計學。臺北市:雙葉。
37. 教育部(2009)。特殊教育法規彙編。臺北市:作者。
38. 黃瓅瑩(2007)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺南市，臺南大學測驗統計研究所。
39. 鄭蕙如(2006)。博士論文(博士論文)。臺北市，臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所。
40. 盧雪梅(2007)。國中基本學力測驗國文科與英語科性別成就差異和性別差別試題功能（DIF）分析。教育研究與發展期刊，3(4)，79-112。
41. 盧雪梅、毛國楠(2006)。國中基本學力測驗數學科之性別差異與差別試題功能（DIF）分析。教育實踐與研究，21(2)，95-126。

1. 鄧鈞文,陳俊瑋,林仁傑(2019)。數學成就測驗的性別差異試題功能（DIF）現象：以臺灣學生學習成就評量資料為例。教育科學期刊，18(1)，71-91。
2. 張萬烽(2021)。學習障礙與一般學生學業自我概念與學業成就之比較：內外參照架構模式。特殊教育研究學刊，46(3)，57-86。
3. 張萬烽(2022)。復原力對國小學習障礙學生與一般學生在心理健康上的影響：個人與變項取向。教育心理學報，54(1)，57-84。