A Generalized Formula for the Mantel-Haenszel Differential Item Functioning Parameter

Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 293-322

  Roussos, Louis A ^a   Schnipke, Deborah L ^b   Pashley, Peter J ^c  

^a Box 40   (United States)

^b Law School Admission Council   (United States)

^c Law School Admission Council   (United States)

Author keywords

DIF; Differential item functioning; Item bias; Item response function; Item response theory; Log odds ratio; Mantel Haenszel statistic; MH D DIF; Parameter; Statistic

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033261583     PISSN: 10769986     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/10769986024003293     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Allen, N. L., & Donoghue, J. R. (1996). Applying the Mantel-Haenszel procedure to complex samples of items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 231-251.
2. Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability. In F. M. Lord & M. R. Novick (Eds.), Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores (pp. 395-479). Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
3. Camilli, G., & Penfield, D. A. (1997). Variance estimation for differential test functioning based on Mantel-Haenszel statistics. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34, 123-139.
4. Clauser, B. E., & Mazor, K. M. (1998). An NCME instructional module on using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning test items. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 17(1), 31-44.
5. 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.
6. Donoghue, J., 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.
7. Dorans, N. J. (1989). Two new approaches to assessing differential item functioning. Standardization and the Mantel-Haenszel method. Applied Measurement in Education, 2, 217-233.
8. Dorans, N. J., & Holland, P. W. (1993). DIF detection and description: Mantel-Haenszel and standardization. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential Item Functioning (pp. 35-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. 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.
10. Gerald, C. F. (1970). Applied Numerical Analysis. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
11. Hanson, B. A. (1998). Uniform DIF and DIF defined by differences in item response functions. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 23, 244-253.
12. Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test Validity (pp. 129-145). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. Mantel, N., & Haenszel, W. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 719-748.
14. Miller, T. R., & Spray, J. A. (1993). Logistic discriminate function analysis for DIF identification of polytomously scored items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 107-122.
15. Mislevy, R. J., & Bock, R. D. (1982). BILOG: Item Analysis and Test Scoring With Binary Logistic Models [Computer program]. Mooresville, Indiana: Scientific Software.
16. 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.
17. Oshima, T. C., Raju, N. S., & Flowers, C. P. (1997). Development and demonstration of multidimensional IRT-based internal measures of differential functioning of items and tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34, 253-272.
18. Pashley, P. J. (1992). Graphical IRT-based DIF analyses (Research Report No. 92-66). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
19. Parshall, C. G., & Miller, T. R. (1995). Exact versus asymptotic Mantel-Haenszel DIF statistics: A comparison of performance under small-sample conditions. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 302-316.
20. Pommerich, M., Spray, J. A., & Parshall, C. G. (1995). An analytical evaluation of two common-odds ratios as population indicators of DIF. (ACT Research Report no. 95-1). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing.
21. Raju, N. S., van der Linden, W. J., & Fleer, P. F. (1995). IRT-based internal measures of differential functioning of items and tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 353-368.
22. Roussos, L. A., Schnipke, D. L., & Pashley, P. J. (in press). A Formulation of the Mantel-Haenszel Differential Item Functioning Parameter with Practical Implications. (LSAC Statistical Report no. 96-03). Newtown, PA: Law School Admission Council.
23. Roussos, L. A., & Stout, W. F. (1996). Simulation studies of the effects of small sample size and studied item parameters on SIBTEST and Mantel-Haenszel Type 1 error performance. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 215-230.
24. Rudas, T., & Zwick, R. (1997). Estimating the importance of differential item functioning. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 31-45.
25. Shealy, R., & Stout, W. F. (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.
26. Spray, J. A., & Miller, T. R. (1992). Performance of the Mantel-Haenszel statistic and the Standardized Difference in Proportion Correct when population ability distributions are incongruent (ACT Research Rep. No. 92-1). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing.
27. Stout, W. F. (1987). A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait dimensionality. Psychometrika, 52, 589-617.
28. Stout, W. F. (1990). A new item response theory modeling approach with applications to unidimensionality assessment and ability estimation. Psychometrika, 55, 293-325.
29. Stout, W. F., Habing, B., Douglas, J. A., Kim, H. R., Roussos, L. A., & Zhang, J. (1996). Conditional covariance-based nonparametric multidimensionality assessment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 331-354.
30. 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.
31. Zieky, M. (1993). Practical questions in the use of DIF statistics in test development. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential Item Functioning (pp. 337-347). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
32. Zwick, R. (1990). When do item response function and Mantel-Haenszel definitions of differential item functioning coincide? Journal of Educational Statistics, 15, 185-197.
33. Zwick, R., & Thayer, D. T. (1996). Evaluating the magnitude of differential item functioning in polytomous items. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 21, 187-201.
34. Zwick, R., Thayer, D. T., & Lewis, C. (1997). An investigation of the validity of an empirical Bayes approach to Mantel-Haenszel DIF analysis. ETS RR-97-21. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
35. Zwick, R., Thayer, D. T., & Wingersky, M. (1994). A simulation study of methods for assessing differential item functioning in computerized adaptive tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 121-140.
36. Zwick, R., Thayer, D. T., & Wingersky, M. (1995). Effect of Rasch calibration on ability and DIF estimation in computer-adaptive tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 341-363.