Sex differences in Higher School Certificate achievement were analysed by adjusting for differential selection. A general ability criterion, favouring neither sex, was developed by modifying the Tertiary Entrance Score (TES). For each course, sex differences in achievement were displayed over eight Key Learning Areas (KLAs). Contrary to many studies based on a more restricted set of courses, it was found that females outperformed males overall. In five KLAs, females outscored males; in two, the results were mixed; and in one (Mathematics) males outscored females. Although the female TES median was 15 marks higher, males performed slightly better at high TES levels. The explanation given was that males tend to specialise in more highly intercorrelated courses than females, which creates variance in their aggregate.
AckermanT.A. (1992). A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact, and item validity from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 67–91
2.
AdamsR.J. (1985). Sex and background factors: Effect on ASAT scores. Australian Journal of Education, 29, 221–230
3.
AinleyJ.JonesW.NavaratnamK. (1990). Subject choice in senior secondary school. Canberra: AGPS
4.
AngoffW.H. (1971). Scales, norms and equivalent scores. In ThorndikeR.L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed.) (pp. 508–600). Washington, DCAmerican Council on Education
5.
AnniceC.AtkinsW.J.PollardG.H.TaylorP.J. (1988). Gender differences in the Australian Mathematics Competition (Technical Report 18/88). Canberra: Canberra College of Advanced Education
6.
ApplebeeA.M.LangerJ.A.MullisI.V.S.JenkinsL.B. (1990). The writing report card. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service
BenbowC.P. (1988). Sex differences in mathematics reasoning ability in intellectually talented preadolescents: Their nature, effects and possible causes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 169–232
9.
BenbowC.P.BenbowR. (1984). Biological correlates of high mathematical reasoning ability. In De VriesG.J.De BruinJ.P.C.UylingsH.B.M.CornerM.A. (Eds.), Progress in brain research, Vol. 61: Sex differences in the brain (pp. 469–490). New YorkElsevier
10.
Board of Studies. (1992). 1992 Higher School Certificate examination statistics. Sydney: Author
11.
BolgerN.KellaghanT. (1990). Method of measurement and gender differences in scholastic achievement. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 165–174
12.
BraunH.I.HollandP.W. (1982). Observed-score test equating: A mathematical analysis of some ETS equating procedures. In HollandP.W.RubinD.B. (Eds.), Test equating (pp. 9–49). New YorkAcademic Press
13.
BrelandH.M.GriswoldP.A. (1982). Use of a performance test as a criterion in a differential validity study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 713–721
14.
BridgemanB. (1988). Comparative validity of multiple-choice and free response advanced placement biology items (College Board Report No. 89-2). New York: College Entrance Examination Board
15.
BurtonN.W.LewisC.RobertsonN. (1988). Sex differences in SAT scores (College Board Report No. 88-9). New York: College Entrance Examination Board
16.
ChambersD.L.DosseyJ.A.LindquistM.M.MullisI.V.S. (1988). The mathematics report card: Are we measuring up? Trends and achievement based on the 1986 National Assessment. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service
17.
ChipmanS.F. (1988). A review ofThe psychology of gender differences: Advances through meta-analysis. Educational Researcher, 17, 46–49
18.
ComberL.C.KeevesJ.P. (1973). Science education in nineteen countries: An empirical study. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell
19.
Commonwealth Schools Commission. (1975). Girls, school and society, Canberra: AGPS
20.
DaleyD. (1985). Standardization by bivariate adjustment of internal assessments: Sex bias and other statistical matters. Australian Journal of Education, 29, 231–247
21.
DonoghueJ.R.AllenN.L. (1993). Thin versus thick matching in the Mantel-Haenszel procedure for detecting DIF. Journal of Educational Statistics, 18, 131–154
22.
DoransN.J.KulickE. (1983). Assessing unexpected differential item performance of female candidates on SAT and TWSE forms administered in December 1977: An application of the standardization approach (ETS Research Report RR-83-9). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service
23.
DoransN.J.KulickE. (1986). Demonstrating the utility of the standardization approach to assessing unexpected differential item performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23, 355–368
24.
FarrellD. (1993). New South Wales young people: A statistical profile. Perth, WA: Australian Bureau of Statistics
25.
Fausto-SterlingA. (1985). Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men. New York: Basic Books
26.
GrayA. (1984). Concepts of disadvantage and models of remediation. In BurnsR.SheehanB., Women and education. Bundoora, Vic.La Trobe University
27.
HalpernD.F. (1986). Sex differences in cognitive abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
28.
HannaG.KuendigerE. (1986). Differences in mathematical achievement levels and in attitudes for girls and boys in 20 countries. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
29.
HardingJ. (1979). Sex differences in performance in examinations at 16+. Physics Education, 14, 280–284
30.
HollandP.W.ThayerD.T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In WainerH.BraunH.I. (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129–145). Hillsdale, NJErlbaum
31.
HosteR. (1982). Sex differences and similarities in performance in a CSE biology examination. Educational Studies, 8, 141–155
32.
HusénT. (Ed.)., (1967). International study of achievement in mathematics. New York: Wiley
33.
JenkinsL.B.MullisI.V.S. (1990). The reading report card, 1971–88: Trends from the nation's report card. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service
34.
KeevesJ.P.KotteD. (1992). Disparities between the sexes in science education: 1970–84. In KeevesJ.P. (Ed.), The IEA study of science III: Changes in science education and achievement 1970 to 1984 (pp. 141–164). OxfordPergamon Press
35.
LederG.C. (1982). Mathematics achievement and fear of success. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 13 (2), 124–135
36.
LinnM.C.PetersonA.C. (1986). A meta-analysis of gender differences in spatial ability: Implications for mathematics and science achievement. In HydeJ.S.LinnM.C. (Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 67–101). Baltimore, MDJohn Hopkins University Press
37.
LordF.M.NovickM.R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
38.
Lustig-SelzerA. (1988). Curricula and gender: Where to now?Education Research and Perspectives, 15 (2), 97–111
39.
MaccobyE.E.JacklinC.N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
40.
MantelN.HaenszelW. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 719–748
41.
MillerM.D.OshimaT.C. (1992). Effect of sample size, number of biased items, and magnitude of bias on a two-stage item bias estimation method. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 381–388
42.
MitchemJ. (1989). Paradoxes in averages. Mathematics Teacher, 82, 250–253
43.
MossJ.D. (1982). Towards equality: Progress by girls in mathematics in Australian secondary schools. Hawthorn, Vic.: ACER
44.
MurphyR.J.L. (1982). Sex differences in objective test performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 213–219
45.
ParkerL.H. (1984). Sex differences in mathematics: Trends in participation and achievement 1976–1983. In Australian Association of Research in Education, National Conference, Perth, November 1984: Collected Papers (Vol. 2). PerthAuthor
46.
ParkerL.H. (1992). Sex differences in performance on external examinations and school-based assessment in science subjects. In DeshonF. (Ed.), Proceedings of the seventeenth annual conference of the Science Education Association of Western Australia. PerthMinistry of Education
47.
ParkerL.H.RennieL.J. (1986). Sex-stereotyped attitudes about science: Can they be changed?European Journal of Science Education, 8, 173–183
48.
PostlethwaiteT.N.WileyD.E. (1992). The IEA study of science II: Science achievement in twenty-three countries. Oxford: Pergamon Press
49.
RennieL.J. (1986). The influence of the social context of the classroom on the relationship between subject-related affect and achievement. Education Research and Perspectives, 13 (2), 75–97
50.
RennieL.J. (1987). Teachers' and pupils' perceptions of technology and the implications for curriculum. Research in Science and Technological Education, 5, 121–133
51.
RosierM.J.LongM.G. (1991). The science achievement of Year 12 students in Australia (ACER Research Monograph No. 40). Hawthorn, Vic.: ACER
52.
RyanK.E. (1991). The performance of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure across samples and matching criteria. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 325–337
Senior Secondary Assessment Board of South Australia. (1993). Gender Equity in Senior Secondary School Assessment (ESSSA) project. Adelaide: Author
55.
SimpsonE.H. (1951). The interpretation of interaction contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series B), 13, 238–241
56.
WainerH. (1986). Minority contributions to SAT score turnaround: An example of Simpson's paradox. Journal of Educational Statistics, 11, 239–244
57.
WhitehouseH.SullivanM. (1993). Girls and Year 12 geography examinations (Research Monograph). Adelaide: Senior Secondary Assessment Board of South Australia
58.
ZwickR.DonoghueJ.R.GrimaA. (1993). Assessment of differential item functioning for performance tasks. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 233–251
