Effects of amount of DIF, test length, and purification type on robustness and power of Mantel-Haenszel procedures

MPR-online

Volumn 5, Issue , 2000, Pages 43-53

  Fidalgo, Ángel M ^a   Mellenbergh, Gideon J ^b   Muñiz, José ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OVIEDO   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0002619289     PISSN: 14328534     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Bradley, J.V. (1978). Robustness? The British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 31, 144-152.
2. Camilli, G. & Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3. Candell, G. L. & Drasgow, F. (1988). An iterative procedure for linking metrics and assessing item bias in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 253-260.
4. Clauser, B., Mazor, K. M. & Hambleton, R. K. (1991). Influence of the criterion variable on the identification of differental item functioning test item using the Mantel-Haenszel statistic. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15, 353-359.
5. Clauser, B., Mazor, K. M. & Hambleton, R. K. (1994). The effects of score group width on the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31, 67-78.
6. Cohen, J. (1988, 2nd ed.). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Fidalgo, A. M. (1994). MHDIF: A computer program for detecting uniform and nonuniform differential item functioning with the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 300.
8. Fidalgo, A.M. (1996). Funcionamiento diferencial de los items [Differential item functioning]. In J. Muñiz (Ed.), Psicometría (pp. 371-455). Madrid, Spain: Universitas.
9. Fidalgo, A. M., Mellenbergh, G.J. & Muñiz, J. (1998). Comparación del procedimiento Mantel-Haenszel frente a los modelos loglineales en la detección del funcionamiento diferencial de los ítems [Comparison of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure versus the loglinear models for detecting differential item functioning]. Psicothema, 10, 219-228.
10. Fidalgo, A. M., Mellenbergh, G.J. & Muñiz, J. (2000). Identification of nonuniform differential item functioning using a variation of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure and the iterative logit method. Revista Electrónica de Metodología Aplicada [On-line], 5 (1). Available: http://www.uniovi.es/~Psi/REMA/
11. Holland, W. P. & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp.129-145). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Kingston, N., Leary, L. & Wightman, L. (1988). An exploratory study of the applicability of item response theory methods to the Graduate Management Admissions Test (GMAC Occasional Papers). Princenton, NJ: Graduate Management Admissions Council.
13. Lautenschlager, G. J., Flaherty, V. L. & Park, D. G. (1994). IRT differential item functioning: An examination of ability scale purifications. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 21-31.
14. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Mazor, K.M., Hambleton, R.K., & Clauser, B.E. (1998). Multidimensional DIF analyses: The effects of matching on unidimensional subtest scores. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22 (4): 357-367.
16. Miller, M. D. & Linn, R. L. (1988). Invariance of item parameters with variations in instructional coverage. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25, 205-219.
17. Miller, M. D. & Oshima, T. C. (1992). Effect of sample size, number of biased items, and magnitude of bias on a two-stage item bias estimation method. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 381-388.
18. Millsap, R. E. & Everson, H. T. (1993). Methodology review: Statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 297-334
19. Narayanan, P. & Swaminathan, H. (1994). Performance of the Mantel-Haenszel and simultaneous item bias procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 315-328.
20. Narayanan, P. & Swaminathan, H. (1996). Identification of items that show nonuniform DIF. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 257-274.
21. Potenza, M. T. & Dorans, N. J. (1995). DIF assessment for polytomously scored items: A framework for classification and evaluation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 23-37.
22. Raju, N. S. (1988). The area between two item characteristics curves. Psychometrika, 53, 495-502.
23. Rogers, H. J. & Swaminathan, H. (1993). A comparison of logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 105-116.
24. Uttaro, T. & Millsap, R. E. (1994). Factors influencing the Mantel-Haenszel procedure in the detection of differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 15-25.
25. Van Der Flier, H., Mellenbergh, G.J., Adèr, H.J. & Wijn, M. (1984). An iterative item bias detection method. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 131-145.