Literature DB >> 35915357

What makes domain knowledge difficult? Word usage frequency from SUBTLEX and dlexDB explains knowledge item difficulty.

Ulrich Ludewig1, Pascal Alscher2, Xiaobin Chen3, Nele McElvany2.   

Abstract

The quality of tests in psychological and educational assessment is of great scholarly and public interest. Item difficulty models are vital to generating test result interpretations based on evidence. A major determining factor of item difficulty in knowledge tests is the opportunity to learn about the facts and concepts in question. Knowledge is mainly conveyed through language. Exposure to language associated with facts and concepts might be an indicator of the opportunity to learn. Thus, we hypothesize that item difficulty in knowledge tests should be related to the probability of exposure to the item content in everyday life and/or academic settings and therefore also to word frequency. Results from a study with 99 political knowledge test items administered to N = 250 German seventh (age: 11-14 years) and tenth (age: 15-18 years) graders showed that word frequencies in everyday settings (SUBTLEX-DE) explain variance in item difficulty, while word frequencies in academic settings (dlexDB) alone do not. However, both types of word frequency combined explain a considerable amount of the variance in item difficulty. Items with words that are more frequent in both settings and, in particular, relatively frequent in everyday settings are easier. High word frequencies and relatively higher word frequency in everyday settings could be associated with higher probability of exposure, conceptual complexity, and better readability of item content. Examining word frequency from different language settings can help researchers investigate test score interpretations and is a useful tool for predicting item difficulty and refining knowledge test items.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Educational assessment; Item difficulty; Political knowledge; Statistical suppression effect; Word frequency

Year:  2022        PMID: 35915357     DOI: 10.3758/s13428-022-01918-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Res Methods        ISSN: 1554-351X


  10 in total

Review 1.  Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect.

Authors:  D P MacKinnon; J L Krull; C M Lockwood
Journal:  Prev Sci       Date:  2000-12

2.  G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences.

Authors:  Franz Faul; Edgar Erdfelder; Albert-Georg Lang; Axel Buchner
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2007-05

3.  Where's the difficulty in standardized reading tests: the passage or the question?

Authors:  Yasuhiro Ozuru; Michael Rowe; Tenaha O'Reilly; Danielle S McNamara
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2008-11

4.  Assessing the local identifiability of probabilistic knowledge structures.

Authors:  Luca Stefanutti; Jürgen Heller; Pasquale Anselmi; Egidio Robusto
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2012-12

Review 5.  The word frequency effect: a review of recent developments and implications for the choice of frequency estimates in German.

Authors:  Marc Brysbaert; Matthias Buchmeier; Markus Conrad; Arthur M Jacobs; Jens Bölte; Andrea Böhl
Journal:  Exp Psychol       Date:  2011

6.  Semantic classification of pictures and words.

Authors:  Alex Taikh; Ian S Hargreaves; Melvin J Yap; Penny M Pexman
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2014-11-18       Impact factor: 2.143

7.  Word prevalence norms for 62,000 English lemmas.

Authors:  Marc Brysbaert; Paweł Mandera; Samantha F McCormick; Emmanuel Keuleers
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2019-04

8.  General knowledge norms: updated and expanded from the Nelson and Narens (1980) norms.

Authors:  Sarah K Tauber; John Dunlosky; Katherine A Rawson; Matthew G Rhodes; Danielle M Sitzman
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2013-12

9.  A further examination of word frequency and age-of-acquisition effects in English lexical decision task performance: The role of frequency trajectory.

Authors:  Barbara J Juhasz; Melvin J Yap; Akila Raoul; Micaela Kaye
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 3.051

10.  What can we learn from Plausible Values?

Authors:  Maarten Marsman; Gunter Maris; Timo Bechger; Cees Glas
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2016-04-06       Impact factor: 2.500

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.