A SIBTEST approach to testing DIF hypotheses using experimentally designed test items

Journal of Educational Measurement

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 307-327

  Bolt, Daniel M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034337095     PISSN: 00220655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.2000.tb01089.x     Document Type: Article

References (14)

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. Ben-Shakhar, G., & Sinai, Y. (1991). Gender differences in multiple-choice tests: The role of differential guessing tendencies. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 23-35.
3. Birenbaum, M., & Feldman, R. A. (1998). Relationships between learning patterns and attitudes towards two assessment formats. Educational Research, 40(1), 90-98.
4. Bond, L. (1993). Comments on the O'Neill & McPeek paper. In P. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential Item Functioning (pp. 277-280). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. 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.
6. Douglas, J., Roussos, L. A., & Stout, W. (1996). Item-bundle DIF hypothesis testing: Identifying suspect bundles and assessing their differential functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 465-484.
7. Martinez, M. E., & Katz, I. R. (1996). Cognitive processing requirements of constructed figural response and multiple-choice items in architecture assessment. Educational Assessment, 3(1), 83-98.
8. Millsap, R. E., & Everson, H. T. (1993). Methodology review: Statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 297-334.
9. O'Neill, K. A., & McPeek, W. M. (1993). Item and test characteristics that are associated with differential item functioning. In P. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential Item Functioning (pp. 255-276). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. Roussos, L., & Stout, W. (1996). A multidimensionality-based DIF analysis paradigm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 355-371.
11. Scheuneman, J. D. (1987). An experimental, exploratory study of causes of bias in test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 97-118.
12. Schmitt, A. P., Holland, P. W., & Dorans, N. J. (1993). Evaluating hypotheses about differential item functioning. In P. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential Item Functioning (pp. 281-316). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. Shealy, R. T., & Stout, W. F. (1993a). A model-based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from group ability differences and detects test bias/DIF as well as item bias/DIF. Psychometrika, 58, 159-194.
14. Shealy, R. T., & Stout, W. F. (1993b). An item response theory model for test bias and differential test functioning. In P. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential Item Functioning (pp. 197-239). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.