In this study, differential item functioning (DIF) trends were examined for English language learners (ELLs) versus non-ELL students in third and tenth grades on a large-scale reading assessment. To facilitate the analyses, a meta-analytic DIF technique was employed. The results revealed that items requiring knowledge of words and phrases in context favored non-ELLs in grade 3, whereas items requiring evaluation skills favored ELLs in grade 10. However, inconsistent patterns were found across gender and ethnicity. Educational implications are discussed.
AbediJ.BaileyA. L.ButlerF.Castellon-WellingtonM.LeonS.MirochaJ. (2005). The validity of administering large-scale content assessments to English language learners: An investigation from three perspectives. CSE Report 663. Retrieved from http://cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/r663.pdf#page=87.
2.
AbediJ.LordC. (2001). The language factor in mathematics tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 14(3), 219–234.
3.
AldermanD. L.HollandP. W. (1981). Item performance across native language groups on the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL Research Report No. 9). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
4.
Al OtaibaS. A.PetscherY.PappamihiehlN. E.WilliamsR. S.DyrlundA. K.ConnorC. (2009). Modeling oral reading fluency development in Latino students: A longitudinal study across second and third grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 315–329.
5.
AndersonR. C.FreebodyP. (1983). Reading comprehension and the assessment and acquisition of word knowledge. In HustonB. (ed.), Advances in reading research (pp. 231–256). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
6.
BadianN. A. (1999). Reading disability defined as a discrepancy between listening and reading comprehension: A longitudinal study of stability, gender differences, and prevalence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 138–148.
7.
BorensteinM.HedgesL.HigginsJ.RothsteinH. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex, UK: Wiley.
8.
BriereE. J. (1968). A psycholinguistic study of phonological interference. The Hague: Mouton.
9.
CarnineD. W.SilbertJ.Kame’enuiE. J.TarverS. (2010). Direct instruction reading (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10.
DoransN. J.HollandP. W. (1993). DIF detection and description: Mantel-Haenszel and standardization. In HollandP. W.WainerH. (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 35–66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
EricksonJ.MolloyJ. (1983). ESP test development for engineering students. In OllerJ. W. (Ed.), Issues in language testing research (pp. 280–288). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
12.
FarhadyH. (1982). Measures of language proficiency from the learner’s perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 16(1), 43–59.
13.
Florida Department of Education. (2004). Assessment & accountability briefing book. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. Retrieved from http://fcat.fldoe.org/pdf/fcataabb.pdf.
FrancisD. J.RiveraM.LesauxN.KiefferM. (2006). Research-based recommendations for instruction and academic interventions. Practical guidelines for the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for instruction and academic interventions. (Under cooperative agreement grant S283B050034 for U.S. Department of Education). Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Available online at www.centeroninstruction.org/files/ELL1-Interventions.pdf.
16.
HaleS. (1988). Developmental trends in speed of information processing across the lifespan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
17.
HedgesL. V. (1992). Meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 17, 279–296.
18.
HedgesL. V.OlkinI. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
19.
HedgesL. V.VeveaJ. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 486–504.
20.
HerberH. L. (1970). Teaching reading in content areas. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
21.
HollandP. W.ThayerD. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In WainerH.BraunH. I. (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129–145). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
22.
HollandP. W.WainerH. (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
HowardK. (1997). Cutting off the world’s roof. Earth, 6(6), 20–21.
24.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariate structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
25.
KimY. H.JangE. E. (2009). Differential functioning of reading subskills on the OSSLT for L1 and ELL students: A multidimensionality model-based DBF/DIF approach. Language Learning, 59, 825–865.
26.
KimY.-S. (2012). The relations among L1 (Spanish) literacy skills, L2 (English) language, L2 text reading fluency, and L2 reading comprehension for Spanish-speaking ELL first grade students. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 690–700
27.
KooJ. (2012). Meta-analysis of the Mantel-Haenszel index for the detection of differential item functioning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University.
28.
LesauxN. K.GevaE.KodaK.SiegelL. S.ShanahanT. (2008). In AugustD.ShanahanT. (Eds.), Developing reading and writing in second language learners, (pp. 27–59). New York: Center for Applied Linguistics and International Reading Association.
29.
LesauxN. K.SiegelL. S. (2003). The development of reading in children who speak English as a second language. Developmental Psychology, 39,1005–1019.
30.
Mancilla-MartinezJ.LesauxN. K. (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for struggling readers: The case of Spanish-speaking language minority learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 701–711.
31.
NakamotoJ.LindseyK. A.ManisF. R. (2008). A cross-linguistic investigation of English language learners’ reading comprehension in English and Spanish. Scientific Studies of Reading,12, 351–371.
32.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Average scale scores for reading by status as English language learner. Retrieved March 21, 2013, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata.
33.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Average scale scores for reading by status as English language learner. Retrieved March 21, 2013, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata.
34.
OltmanP. K.StrickerL. J.BarrowsT. (1988). Native language, English proficiency and the structure of the Test of English as a Foreign Language. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
35.
PolitzerR. L.McGroartyM. (1985). An exploratory study of learning behaviors and their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 103–123.
36.
RobinsJ.BreslowN. E.GreenlandS. (1986). Estimators of the Mantel-Haenszel variance consistent in both sparse data and large-strata limiting models. Biometrics, 42, 311–324.
37.
ScherbaumC. A.GoldsteinH. W. (2008). Examining the relationship between race-based differential item functioning and item difficulty. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 537–553.
38.
SiegelL. S.SmytheI. S. (2005). Reflections on research on reading disability with special attention to gender issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 473–477.
39.
SpurlingS.IlyingD. (1985). The impact of learner variables on language test performance. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 283–301.
40.
StahlS. A. (2003). Vocabulary and readability: How knowing word meanings affects comprehension. Topics in Language Disorders, 23, 241–247.
41.
SwintonS.PowersD. E. (1980). Factor analysis of the Test of English as a Foreign Language for several language groups (TOEFL Research Report No. 6). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
42.
WagnerR. K.SchatschneiderC. (2009). Classification of students based on developmental trajectories of reading: Robustness of findings across sample and method. Paper presented at the Scientific Studies of Reading Conference, Boston, MA.
43.
WolfM. K.LeonS. (2009). An investigation of the language demands in content assessments for English language learners. Educational Assessment, 14, 139–159.
44.
ZwickR.ErcikanK. (1989). Analysis of differential item functioning in the NAEP history assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 55–66.
