Detail Page

Physical Review Physics Education Research
written by Rachel Henderson, Paul M. Miller, John Stewart, Adrienne L. Traxler, and Rebecca S. Lindell
Gender gaps on the most widely used conceptual inventories created by physics education researchers have been extensively studied. Most of the research exploring the consistent gender gaps has been performed at the student level using the total evaluation score; less research has been performed examining these assessments at the item level and this research has been predominately restricted to the Force Concept Inventory (FCI). Many studies have identified subsets of FCI items as unfair to either men or women. An item is fair if men and women of equal ability in conceptual physics score equally on the item. This study explored the item-level gender fairness of the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE) and the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism (CSEM). Classical test theory and differential item functioning (DIF) analysis were employed to examine item fairness. Fairness was investigated with four large post-test samples, two for the FMCE (n1 = 3016, n2 = 3719) and two for the CSEM (n1 = 2014, n2 = 2657). Men and women performed significantly differently on the majority of FMCE items but with no more than a small effect size. There were fewer items in the CSEM where men and women performed differently. Using DIF analysis, which assumes that overall test score is an accurate measure of ability, only one item in the FMCE demonstrated large DIF in both samples with that item unfair to women. One additional item showed large DIF in a single sample, also unfair to women. Only one item in the CSEM demonstrated large DIF. The item was unfair to men but this result was not consistent across all samples. The number of large DIF items identified in both the FMCE and the CSEM was substantially smaller than the number of large DIF items identified in the FCI by previous studies.
Physical Review Physics Education Research: Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages 020103
Subjects ADS Supplements Resource Types
Classical Mechanics
- General
Education Foundations
- Assessment
= Conceptual Assessment
= Instruments
- Research Design & Methodology
= Evaluation
= Validity
- Sample Population
= Gender
- Societal Issues
= Gender Issues
- Student Characteristics
= Ability
= Skills
Electricity & Magnetism
- General
General Physics
- Physics Education Research
- Reference Material
= Research study
Intended Users Formats Ratings
- Researchers
- Administrators
- application/pdf
- text/html
  • Currently 0.0/5

Want to rate this material?
Login here!


Access Rights:
Free access
License:
This material is released under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license.
Rights Holder:
American Physical Society
DOI:
10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020103
NSF Numbers:
PHY-0108787
EPS-1003907
Keywords:
CSEM validity, FMCE validity
Record Creator:
Metadata instance created December 31, 2018 by Lyle Barbato
Record Updated:
June 8, 2022 by Caroline Hall
Last Update
when Cataloged:
July 11, 2018
Other Collections:

ComPADRE is beta testing Citation Styles!

Record Link
AIP Format
R. Henderson, P. Miller, J. Stewart, A. Traxler, and R. Lindell, , Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14 (2), 020103 (2018), WWW Document, (https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020103).
AJP/PRST-PER
R. Henderson, P. Miller, J. Stewart, A. Traxler, and R. Lindell, Item-level gender fairness in the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14 (2), 020103 (2018), <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020103>.
APA Format
Henderson, R., Miller, P., Stewart, J., Traxler, A., & Lindell, R. (2018, July 11). Item-level gender fairness in the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., 14(2), 020103. Retrieved March 29, 2023, from https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020103
Chicago Format
Henderson, R, P. Miller, J. Stewart, A. Traxler, and R. Lindell. "Item-level gender fairness in the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism." Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, no. 2, (July 11, 2018): 020103, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020103 (accessed 29 March 2023).
MLA Format
Henderson, Rachel, Paul Miller, John Stewart, Adrienne Traxler, and Rebecca Lindell. "Item-level gender fairness in the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism." Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14.2 (2018): 020103. 29 Mar. 2023 <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020103>.
BibTeX Export Format
@article{ Author = "Rachel Henderson and Paul Miller and John Stewart and Adrienne Traxler and Rebecca Lindell", Title = {Item-level gender fairness in the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism}, Journal = {Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.}, Volume = {14}, Number = {2}, Pages = {020103}, Month = {July}, Year = {2018} }
Refer Export Format

%A Rachel Henderson %A Paul Miller %A John Stewart %A Adrienne Traxler %A Rebecca Lindell %T Item-level gender fairness in the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism %J Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. %V 14 %N 2 %D July 11, 2018 %P 020103 %U https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020103 %O application/pdf

EndNote Export Format

%0 Journal Article %A Henderson, Rachel %A Miller, Paul %A Stewart, John %A Traxler, Adrienne %A Lindell, Rebecca %D July 11, 2018 %T Item-level gender fairness in the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism %J Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. %V 14 %N 2 %P 020103 %8 July 11, 2018 %U https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020103


Disclaimer: ComPADRE offers citation styles as a guide only. We cannot offer interpretations about citations as this is an automated procedure. Please refer to the style manuals in the Citation Source Information area for clarifications.

Citation Source Information

The AIP Style presented is based on information from the AIP Style Manual.

The APA Style presented is based on information from APA Style.org: Electronic References.

The Chicago Style presented is based on information from Examples of Chicago-Style Documentation.

The MLA Style presented is based on information from the MLA FAQ.

Save to my folders

Contribute

Similar Materials