Is the Force Concept Inventory biased across the intersections of gender and race?

Research-based assessments (RBAs) allow researchers and practitioners to compare student performance across different contexts and institutions. In recent years, research attention has focused on the student populations these RBAs were initially developed with because much of that research was done with “samples of convenience” that were predominantly white men. Prior research has found that the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) behaved differently for men and women using differential item functioning (DIF) analysis. We extend this research in two ways. First, we test the FCI for DIF across the intersection of gender and race for Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, and White Hispanic men and women. Second, we apply the Eaton and Willoughby five-factor model of the FCI to interpret the results of the DIF analysis. We found large DIF on a large number of FCI items. The patterns of items with large DIF follows the five-factor model. The alignment of DIF with this factor structure, along with the measurement invariance of this factor structure across these ten social identities, indicates that the items on the FCI are likely not biased but are instead measuring real differences in physics knowledge among these groups. We frame these differences as educational debts that society owes to these marginalized groups that physics instruction needs to actively repay.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Physical Review Physics Education Research
Published
2025-04-07
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.21.010137
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Occupational Health and Performance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.77

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Is the Force Concept Inventory biased across the intersections of gender and race?

Robert M. Talbot, John B. Buncher, Ben Van Dusen, Jayson Nissen
1 citations
Physical Review Physics Education Research
Occupational Health and Performance
5.77
article

Is the Force Concept Inventory biased across the intersections of gender and race?

Robert M. Talbot, John B. Buncher, Ben Van Dusen, Jayson Nissen
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Research-based assessments (RBAs) allow researchers and practitioners to compare student performance across different contexts and institutions. In recent years, research attention has focused on the student populations these RBAs were initially developed with because much of that research was done with “samples of convenience” that were predominantly white men. Prior research has found that the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) behaved differently for men and women using differential item functioning (DIF) analysis. We extend this research in two ways. First, we test the FCI for DIF across the intersection of gender and race for Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, and White Hispanic men and women. Second, we apply the Eaton and Willoughby five-factor model of the FCI to interpret the results of the DIF analysis. We found large DIF on a large number of FCI items. The patterns of items with large DIF follows the five-factor model. The alignment of DIF with this factor structure, along with the measurement invariance of this factor structure across these ten social identities, indicates that the items on the FCI are likely not biased but are instead measuring real differences in physics knowledge among these groups. We frame these differences as educational debts that society owes to these marginalized groups that physics instruction needs to actively repay.

Physical Review Physics Education ResearchVol. 21(1)
Dakota State University (US), Iowa State University (US), Montana State University (US), North Dakota State University (US), University of Colorado Denver (US)
National Science Foundation
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Occupational Health and Performance
5.77
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.