MULTISIB: A procedure to investigate DIF when a test is intentionally two-dimensional

Applied Psychological Measurement

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 195-213

  Stout, William ^a   Li, Hsin Hung ^b   Nandakumar, Ratna ^b   Bolt, Daniel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^b University of Illinois ^*

Author keywords

Differential item functioning; Item response theory; Multidimensionality; MULTISIB; Regression correction; SIBTEST; Type I error

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031519834     PISSN: 01466216     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/01466216970213001     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Ackerman, T. (1992). A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact, and item validity from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 67-91.
2. Ackerman, T. (1996). Graphical representation of multidimensional item response theory analyses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 311-329.
3. Ackerman, T. (1993, April). A didactic example of the influence of conditioning on the complete latent ability space when performing DIF analyses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Atlanta.
4. Chang, H., Mazzeo, J., & Roussos, L. (1996). Detecting DIF for polytomous scored items: An adaptation of the SIBTEST procedure. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 333-353.
5. 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. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 137-166). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Dorans, N. J., & Kulick, E. (1986). Demonstrating the utility of the standardization approach to assessing unexpected differential item performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23, 355-368.
7. Douglas, J., Roussos, L., & Stout, W. (1996). Item bundle DIF hypothesis testing: Identifying suspect bundles and assessing their differential functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 465-484.
8. Douglas, J., Stout, W., & DiBello, L. (1996). A kernel-smoothed version of SIBTEST with applications to local DIF inference and function estimation. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 21, 333-363.
9. Hattie, J. (1985). Methodology review: Assessing unidimensionality of tests and items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 139-164.
10. Holland, P. W., & 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.
11. Fraser, C., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). NOHARM: Least squares item factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 267-269.
12. Law School Admissions Council. (1989, June). Law School Admissions Test. Newtown PA: Author.
13. Li, H., & Stout, W. (1996). A new procedure for detection of crossing DIF. Psychometrika, 61, 647-677.
14. Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
15. 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.
16. Millsap, R. E., & Everson, H. T. (1993). Methodology review: Statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 297-334.
17. Nandakumar, R. (1993). Simultaneous DIF amplification and cancellation: Shealy-Stout's test for DIF. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 293-311.
18. Narayanan, P., & Swaminathan, H. (1994). Performance of the Mantel-Haenszel and simultaneous item bias procedure for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 315-328.
19. Narayanan, P., & Swaminathan, H. (1996). Identification of items that show nonuniform DIF. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 257-274.
20. Raju, N., van der Linden, W., & Fleer, P. (1995). IRT-based internal measures of differential functioning of items and tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 353-368.
21. Reckase, M. D., & McKinley, R. L. (1983, April). The definition of difficulty and discrimination for multidimensional item response theory models. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
22. Roussos, L., & Stout, W. (1996a). Simulation studies of effects of small sample size and studied item parameters on SIBTEST and Mantel-Haenszel type I error performance. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 215-230.
23. Roussos, L., & Stout, W. (1996b). A multidimensionality-based DIF analysis paradigm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 355-371.
24. Shealy, R., & Stout, W. (1993). A model-based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from group ability differences and detects test bias/DTF as well as item bias/DIF. Psychometrika, 58, 159-194.
25. Shepard, L. A., Camilli, G., & Williams, D. M. (1985). Validity of approximation techniques for detecting item bias. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22, 77-105.
26. Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990a, April). A comparison of the logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
27. Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990b). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 361-370.
28. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1988). Use of item response theory in the study of group differences in trace lines. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 147-169). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.