This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Hamilton, L. S. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Gender Differences on High School Science Achievement Tests: Do Format and Content Matter?

RAND

Gender differences on the NELS:88 multiple-choice and constructed-response science tests were explored through a combination of statistical analyses and interviews. Performance gaps between males and females varied across formats (multiple-choice versus constructed-response) and across items within a format. Differences were largest for items that involved visual content and called on application of knowledge commonly acquired through extracurricular activities. Large-scale surveys such as NELS:88 are widely used by researchers to study the effects of various student and school characteristics on achievement. The results of this investigation reveal the value of studying the validity of the outcome measure and suggest that conclusions about group differences and about correlates of achievement depend heavily on specific features of the items that make up the test.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 20, No. 3, 179-195 (1998)
DOI: 10.3102/01623737020003179


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				O. Lee and A. Luykx Dilemmas in Scaling Up Innovations in Elementary Science Instruction With Nonmainstream Students American Educational Research Journal, January 1, 2005; 42(3): 411 - 438. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. Hamilton Chapter 2: Assessment as a Policy Tool Review of Research in Education, January 1, 2003; 27(1): 25 - 68. [PDF]

				R. H. Heck and M. Crislip Direct and Indirect Writing Assessments: Examining Issues of Equity and Utility Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, January 1, 2001; 23(1): 19 - 36. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. H. Heck and M. Crislip Direct and Indirect Writing Assessments: Examining Issues of Equity and Utility Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, January 1, 2001; 23(3): 275 - 292. [Abstract] [PDF]

				O. Lee Equity Implications Based on the Conceptions of Science Achievement in Major Reform Documents Review of Educational Research, January 1, 1999; 69(1): 83 - 115. [Abstract] [PDF]