Open access


The present research investigates gender gaps in the results of secondary school exit exams (Matura) in mathematics in Poland in 2015. The analysis shows that, in the basic level exam, males are highly overrepresented at the upper end of the score distribution. The same pattern did not exist in the extended-level Matura. Two explanations are offered here. The differences are driven by gender self-selection in high school programs. Students who decide on maths-related tracks have more maths lessons than other students. Secondly, a student who takes the extended Matura also has to take the basic Matura exam. As a result, the population of students taking the basic Matura is highly differentiated in terms of maths competence and motivation. Additionally, the analysis of differential item functioning (DIF) shows that only a few items were flagged as having DIF.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Angoff W. H. (1993) Perspectives on Differential Item Functioning in Differential Item Functioning. In P. W. Holland & Howard Wainer (Eds.) Differential Item Functioning (pp. 3-25). New York: Routledge.

  • Ayala de R. J. (2013). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York: Guilford Publications.

  • Beller M. & Gafni N. (2000). Can item format (multiple choice vs. open-ended) account for gender differences in mathematics achievement? Sex Roles 42(1-2) 1-21.

  • Duckworth A. L. & Seligman M. E. (2006). Self-discipline gives girls the edge: Gender in self-discipline grades and achievement test scores. Journal of educational psychology 98(1) 198.

  • Doris A. O’Neill D. & Sweetman O. (2013). Gender single-sex schooling and maths achievement. Economics of Education Review 35 104-119.

  • Ellison G. & Swanson A. (2009). The gender gap in secondary school mathematics at high achievement levels: Evidence from the American Mathematics Competitions (No. w15238). National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Fryer Jr R. G. & Levitt S. D. (2009). An empirical analysis of the gender gap in mathematics (No. w15430). National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Good C. Aronson J. & Harder J. A. (2008). Problems in the pipeline: Stereotype threat and women’s achievement in high-level math courses. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 29(1) 17-28.

  • Golia S. (2012). Differential Item Functioning classification for polytomously scored items. Electronic Journal of Applied Statistical Analysis 5(3) 367-373.

  • Halpern D. F. (2013). Sex differences in cognitive abilities. New York: Psychology press.

  • Henderson D. L. (2001). Prevalence of Gender DIF in Mixed Format High School Exit Examinations. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Seattle).

  • Holland P. W. & Thayer D. T. (1986). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (San Francisco).

  • Hyde J. S. & Mertz J. E. (2009). Gender culture and mathematics performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(22) 8801-8807.

  • Jurajda S. & Munich D. (2008). Gender Gap in Admission Performance under Competitive Pressure. CERGE-EI Working Paper Series (371).

  • Kling K. C. Noftle E. E. & Robins R. W. (2012). Why do standardized tests underpredict women’s academic performance? The role of conscientiousness. Social Psychological and Personality Science 4(5) 600-606.

  • Kosmala-Anderson J. (2006). Płeć a natężenie i rodzaj psychosomatycznych reakcji na stres egzaminacyjny. Przegląd terapeutyczny 1/2006.

  • Kondratek B. & Grudniewska M. (2014). Comparison of Mantel-Haenszel with IRT procedures for DIF detection and effect size estimation for dichotomous items. Edukacja Quarterly 128(3).

  • Kenney-Benson G. A. Pomerantz E. M. Ryan A. M. & Patrick H. (2006). Sex differences in math performance: The role of children’s approach to schoolwork. Developmental psychology 42(1) 11.

  • Meyer J. P. (2014). Applied measurement with jMetrik. New York: Routledge. Ors E. Palomino F. & Peyrache E. (2013). Performance gender gap: does competition matter? Journal of Labor Economics 31(3) 443-499.

  • Stoet G. & Geary D.C. (2013) Sex Differences in Mathematics and Reading Achievement Are Inversely Related: Within- and Across-Nation Assessment of 10 Years of PISA Data. PLoS ONE 8(3): e57988.

  • Stoet G. & Geary D. C. (2012). Can stereotype threat explain the gender gap in mathematics performance and achievement? Review of General Psychology 16(1) 93.

  • Skorska P. & Świst K. (2014). Wielkość efektu płci w wewnątrzszkolnych i zewnątrzszkolnych wskaźnikach osiągnięć ucznia. Konferencja PTDE.

  • Świst K. Skorska P. Koniewski M. & Jasińska-Maciążek A. (2015). Sex differences in guessing and item omission. Edukacja 3 48-62.

  • Szaleniec H. Kondratek B. Kulon F. Pokropek A. Skorska P. Świst K. & Żołtak M. (2015). Porownywalne wyniki egzaminacyjne. Warszawa: Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych.

  • Jakubowski M. & Pokropek A. (2009). Badając egzaminy: Podejście ilościowe w badaniach edukacyjnych. Centralna Komisja Egzaminacyjna.

  • Lindberg S. M. Hyde J. S. Petersen J. L. & Linn M. C. (2010). New trends in gender and mathematics performance: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin 136(6) 1123.

  • Niederle M. & Vesterlund L. (2007). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? The Quarterly Journal of Economics 1067-1101.

  • Niederle M. & Vesterlund L. (2010). Explaining the gender gap in math test scores: The role of competition. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 24(2) 129-144.

  • Penner A. M. (2008). Gender differences in extreme mathematical achievement: An international perspective on biological and social factors. American Journal of Sociology 114: S138-S170.

  • PISA O. (2012). Results in Focus: What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know. [2014-12-03].

  • Robinson-Cimpian J. P. Lubienski S. T. Ganley C. M. & Copur-Gencturk Y. (2014). Teachers’ perceptions of students’ mathematics proficiency may exacerbate early gender gaps in achievement. Developmental psychology 50(4) 1262.

  • Tannenbaum D. I. (2012). Do gender differences in risk aversion explain the gender gap in SAT scores? Uncovering risk attitudes and the test score gap. Unpublished paper University of Chicago Chicago.

  • Zwick R. & Ercikan K. (1989). Analysis of differential item functioning in the NAEP history assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement 26(1) 55-66.

Journal information
Impact Factor

Cite Score 2018: 0.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.138
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.358

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 288 144 6
PDF Downloads 157 107 5