Abstract
Abstract. Sex differences in mathematical ability were examined in a nation-wide sample of 32,346 Jordanian 4th graders (age 9–10 year) on a 40-item mathematics test. Overall, boys were found to perform slightly worse (d = −0.12) but had slightly more variation in scores (SD = 1.02 and SD = 0.98 for boys and girls, respectively). However, when results were disaggregated by school type, single-sex versus coed (i.e., coeducational), boys were found to perform better than girls in coed schools (d = 0.27) but worse across single-sex schools (d = −0.37). Two-parameter item response theory analysis showed that item difficulty was similar across sexes in the full sample. Item loadings exhibited substantial departure from measurement invariance with respect to boys and girls at single-sex schools, though. For boys and girls at coed schools, both the item difficulty and item loading correlations were highly similar, evincing that measurement invariance largely held in this case. Partially consistent with findings from other countries, a correlation between item difficulty and male advantage was observed, r = .57, such that the relative male advantage increased with increased item difficulty. Complicating interpretation, this association did not replicate within coed schools. Item content, Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy category, and item position showed no relation to sex differences.
References
(2016). TIMSS and PISA impact – The case of Jordan. Research Papers in Education, 31, 542–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2016.1225350
(2013). Single-sex schooling and mathematics achievement in the Middle East: The case of Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Oman (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10822/558666
(2016). Differential Item Functioning of the National Educational Quality Control Test in Mathematics for 10th Grade According to Gender [in Arabic]. Alnajah University Journal for Researches (Human Sciences), 30, 1530–1554. Retrieved from https://journals.najah.edu/article/1306/
(2000). Can item format (multiple choice vs. open-ended) account for gender differences in mathematics achievement? Sex Roles, 42, 1–21.
(2001). A sex difference by item difficulty interaction in multiple-choice mathematics items administered to national probability samples. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 51–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2001.tb01116.x
(1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives book 1: Cognitive domain (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Addison Wesley.
(2016). An international comparison of students’ ability to endure fatigue and maintain motivation during a low-stakes test. Learning and Individual Differences, 49, 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.06.001
(2013). Gender related differential item functioning for Jordanian national test items for mathematics learning quality control for tenth grade [in Arabic]. Journal of Education in Zagazig University, 79, 15–35.
(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
(2013). Modeling item-position effects within an IRT framework. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50, 164–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12009
(2010). Item Response Theory. Oxford, UK/New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
(2015). Do the maths: An analysis of the gender gap in mathematics in Africa. Economics of Education Review, 46, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.02.005
(2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018053
(1998). Item response theory and classical test theory: An empirical comparison of their item/person statistics. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 357–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164498058003001
(2010). An empirical analysis of the gender gap in mathematics. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2, 210–240.
(2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, 8, 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x
(2010). The weirdest people in the world? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83. Discussion 83–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
(2006). Content analysis of gender-related differential item functioning TIMSS items in mathematics in Jordan. School Science and Mathematics, 106, 328–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2006.tb17753.x
(2012). Debunking myths about gender and mathematics performance. Notices of the AMS, 59, 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1090/noti790
(2014). Exploring gender differential item functioning (DIF) on eighth grade mathematics items for the United States and Taiwan (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1773/26209
(2009). Greater intrasex phenotype variability in males than in females is a fundamental aspect of the gender differences in humans. Developmental Psychobiology, 51, 198–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.20358
(2017). The effects of item format and cognitive domain on students’ science performance in TIMSS 2011. Research in Science Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9682-7
(1996). Gender differences in performance on the DTM subtest in the Swedish scholastic aptitude test as a function of item position and cognitive demands. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 40, 189–201.
(2009). National differences in gender–science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 10593–10597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0809921106
. (2015). PISA 2015 Technical Report. Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2015-technical-report/
(2003). International gender × item difficulty interactions in mathematics and science achievement tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 650–655. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.650
. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.4.0).. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org
(2017). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. (Version 1.7.8). Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/psych/index.html
(2009). New effect size rules of thumb. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 8, 597–599. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1257035100
(2016). The influence of item sampling on sex differences in knowledge tests. Intelligence, 58, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.06.003
(2015). Attitudes towards gender roles in Jordan. British Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 12, 15–27.
(2015). Sex differences in academic achievement are not related to political, economic, or social equality. Intelligence, 48, 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.11.006
(2014). Gender gap in student achievement in Jordan study report. Retrieved from http://www.nchrd.gov.jo/assets/PDF/Studies/En/Gender%20Gap%20Report%20%2008_25_14.pdf
(2015, September 8). Introduction to the tetrachoric and polychoric correlation coefficients. Retrieved from http://john-uebersax.com/stat/tetra.htm
(2017). Psychometric problems with the method of correlated vectors applied to item scores (including some nonsensical results). Intelligence, 60, 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.11.002
(2009). Group differences in the heritability of items and test scores. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276, 2675–2683. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0238
(2017). Is the item-position effect in achievement measures induced by increasing item difficulty? Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 24, 745–754. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1306706
