Site Map | Search | Terms & Conditions - PAIA
Company Profile | Products | Support | Contact Us | Community
...facilitating access to information
Legal | Electronic Publications | Online Reference | Collection Management | Library Systems | Cataloguing | Interlending | Client Access
HomeProductsElectronic Publications (Online Journals) Abstract Information
JournalsElectronic Publishing
Abstract Info
Latest issues added
More on this service
Subscription FAQ
Collections

Abstract Information

Examining bias in a test of academic literacy : does the Test of Academic Literacy Levels (TALL) treat students from English and African language backgrounds differently?

  • Journal Title: Journal for Language Teaching = Tydskrif vir Taalonderrig
  • Volume: Volume 44
  • Issue:  Issue 2
  • Publication Date: 2010
  • Pages: 106  - 118
  • Authors:  Frans Van Der Slik;  Albert Weideman;
  • ISSN: 02599570
  • Abstract:  Responsible test design relies on close examination of a number of parameters of a test. After finding a clearly argued, rational basis (construct) for the ability being tested, then articulating this in detailed specifications for subtests and item types, and subsequently setting benchmarks for both test reliability and item productivity, there remains, after the results become available, a number of further dimensions of a test that need attention. This article examines one such dimension: that of Differential Item Functioning (DIF), asking whether there is, in the case of the test under consideration, bias towards a certain group of test-takers (testees), so that they are unfairly disadvantaged by some of the items or task types in the test. The test results across four different years (2005-2008) of a large group of first year students, the bulk of the intake at one South African university, are analysed. The fact that there are variations in DIF across the different years and across different task types (subtests) calls for specific explanations. The findings suggest that one would do well to examine test results in depth, in order to avoid conclusions that may be fashionable but inaccurate. However, the argument returns to the defensibility of the test construct, and what should legitimately be included in that, and, by extension, measured.
  • Read this article

For subscription and additional information please contact us on:

  • Tel: +27 12 643-9500
  • email: info@sabinet.co.za
  • alternatively you can complete this form and one of our portfolio managers will contact you!

Top
Sabinet Online Ltd. is Proudly South AfricanCompany Profile | Products | Support | Contact Us | Community
P O Box 9785 Centurion 0046 | info@sabinet.co.za | 0800 11 85 95
Copyright © Sabinet Online Ltd 2008. All Rights Reserved. Terms & Conditions. PAIA.