Improving the matching for DIF analysis by conditioning on both test score and an educational background variable

Journal of Educational Measurement

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 453-464

  Clauser, Brian E ^a   Nungester, Ronald J ^a   Swaminathan, Hariharan ^b  

^a NATIONAL BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030300449     PISSN: 00220655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1996.tb00501.x     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Ackerman, T. A., & Evans, J. A. (1994). The influence of conditioning scores in performing DIF analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 329-342.
2. Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3. Clauser, B. E., Mazor, K.M., & Hambleton, R. K. (1991). Influence of the criterion variable on the identification of differentially functioning test items using the Mantel-Haenszel statistic. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15, 353 359.
4. Clauser, B. E., 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.
5. Clauser, B. E., Nungester, R. J., Mazor, K., & Ripkey, D. (1996). A comparison of alternative matching strategies for DIF detection in tests that are multidimensional. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 202-214.
6. Donoghue, J. R., & Allen, N. L. (1993). Thin versus thick matching in the Mantel-Haenszel procedure for detecting DIF. Journal of Educational Statistics, 18, 131-154.
7. Donoghue, J. R., Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1993). A Monte Carlo study of factors that affect the Mantel-Haenszel and standardization measures of differential item functioning. In P. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 137-166). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Hambleton, R. K., & Rogers, H. J. (1989). Detecting potentially biased test items: Comparison of IRT area and Mantel-Haenszel methods. Applied Measurement in Education, 2, 313-334.
9. Kubiak, A., O'Neill, K., & Payton, C. (1992, April). The effects of using educational background variables in DIF analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
10. Linn, R. L. (1993). The use of differential item functioning statistics: A discussion of current practice and future implications. In P. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 349-364). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Longford, N. T., Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1993). Stability of the MH D-DIF statistics across populations. In P. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 171-196). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Mazor, K., Hambleton, R. K., & Clauser, B. E. (1994, April). The effects of conditioning on two internally derived ability estimates in multidimensional DIF analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
13. Mazor, K., Kanjee, A., & Clauser, B. E. (1995). Using logistic regression and the Mantel-Haenszel with multiple ability estimates to detect differential item functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 131-144.
14. Muthén, B. O., Kao, C., & Burstein, L. (1991). Instructionally sensitive psychometrics: Application of a new IRT-based detection technique to mathematics achievement test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 1-22.
15. National Board of Medical Examiners. (1993). Part III examination general instructions and sample items. Philadelphia, PA: Author.
16. Raju, N. S., Bode, R. K., & Larsen, V. S. (1989). An empirical analysis of the Mantel-Haenszel statistic for studying differential item performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 2, 1-13.
17. Rogers, H. J., & Swaminathan, H. (1993). A comparison of logistic regression and the Mantel-Haenszel procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 105-116.
18. Shealy, R., & Stout, W. F. (1993). A model-based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from group differences and detects test bias/DTF as well as item bias/ DIF. Psychometrika, 58, 159-194.
19. Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 361-370.
20. Zwick, R. (1994). Test and item bias: An overview. In The 1994 proceedings of the Social Statistics Section of the American Statistical Association (pp. 9-16). Washington, DC: American Statistical Association.
21. Zwick, R. (1995, April). Stability of DIF classification: An alternative representation of the variability of the Mantel-Haenszel statistic. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.
22. Zwick, R., & Ercikan, K. (1989). Analysis of differential item functioning in the NAEP history assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 55-66.