Identifying sources of differential item and bundle functioning on translated achievement tests: A confirmatory analysis

Journal of Educational Measurement

Volumn 38, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 164-187

  Gierl, Mark J ^b   Khaliq, Shameem Nyla ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035373504     PISSN: 00220655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.2001.tb01121.x     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Ackerman, T. A. (1992). A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact, and item validity from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 67-91.
2. Alberta Education. (1989). Program of Studies: Social Studies. Edmonton, AB: Curriculum Standards Branch, Alberta Education.
3. Alberta Education. (1996). Program of Studies: Mathematics. Edmonton, AB: Curriculum Standards Branch, Alberta Education.
4. Allalouf, A., Hambleton, R., & Sireci, S. (1999). Identifying the causes of translation DIF on verbal items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 185-198.
5. Angoff, W. H. (1993). Perspective on differential item functioning methodology. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 3-24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. Angoff, W. H., & Cook, L. L. (1988). Equating the scores of the Prueba de Aptitud Academica and the Scholastic Aptitude Test (College Board Report No. 88-2). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
7. Berk, R. A. (Ed.) (1982). Handbook of methods for detecting test bias. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
8. Bond, L. (1993). Comments on the O'Neill and McPeek paper. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 277-279). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9. Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Newbury Park: Sage.
10. Clauser, B. E., & Mazor, K. M. (1998). Using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning test items. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 31-44.
11. Cronbach, L. J. (1989). Construct validation after thirty years. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Intelligence: Measurement theory and public policy (Proceedings of a symposium in honor of Lloyd G. Humphreys, pp. 147-171). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
12. Douglas, J., Roussos, L., and Stout, W. (1996). Item bundle DIF hypothesis testing: Identifying suspect bundles and assessing their DIF. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 465-484.
13. Engelhard, G., Hansche, L., & Rutledge, K. E. (1990). Accuracy of bias review judges in identifying differential item functioning on teacher certification tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 3, 347-360.
14. Ercikan, K. (1999, April). Translation DIF on TIMSS. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
15. Ericcson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Frederiksen, N., Mislevy, R. J., Bejar, I. I. (1993). Test theory for a new generation of tests. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Gierl, M. J. (1997). Comparing the cognitive representations of test developers and students on a mathematics achievement test using Bloom's taxonomy. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 26-32.
18. Gierl, M., & McEwen, N. (1998, May). Differential item functioning on the Alberta Education Social Studies 30 Diploma Exams. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
19. Gierl, M. J., Rogers, W. T., & Klinger, D. (1999, April). Consistency between statistical procedures and content reviews for identifying translation DIF. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
20. Hambleton, R. K. (1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: progress report.. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10, 229-244.
21. Hambleton, R. K., & Patsula, L. (1998). Adapting tests for use in multiple languages and cultures. Social Indicators Research, 45, 153-171.
22. Hattie, J., Jaeger, R, M., & Bond, L. (1999). Persistent methodological questions in educational testing. Review of Research in Education, 24, 393-446.
23. Jeanrie, C., & Bertrand, R. (1999). Translating tests with the International Test Commission's guidelines: Keeping validity in mind. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 15, 277-283.
24. Jiang, H., & Stout, W. (1998). Improved type I error control and reduced estimation bias for DIF detection using SIBTEST. Journal of Educational & Behavioral Statistics, 23, 291-322.
25. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). New York: American Council on Educational, Macmillian.
26. Millsap, R. E., & Everson, H. T. (1993). Methodology review: Statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 297-334.
27. Mislevy, R. J. (1996). Test theory reconceived. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 379-416.
28. Nichols, P. (1994). A framework of developing cognitively diagnostic assessments. Review of Educational Research, 64, 575-603.
29. Nichols, P. D., Chipman, S. F., Brennan, R. L. (1995). Cognitively diagnostic assessment Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. O'Neill, K. A., & McPeek, W. M. (1993). Item and test characteristics that are associated with differential item functioning. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 255-276). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31. Plake, B. S. (1980). A comparison of a statistical and subjective procedure to ascertain item validity: One step in the validation process. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40, 397-404.
32. Ramsey, P. A. (1993). Sensitivity reviews: The ETS experience as a case study. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 367-388). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33. Reckase, M. D., & Kunce, C. (1999, May). Translation accuracy of a technical credentialing examination. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
34. Rengel, E. (1986, August). Agreement between statistical and judgmental item bias methods. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
35. Roussos, L., & Stout, W. (1996a). A multidimensionality-based DIF analysis paradigm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 355-371.
36. Roussos, L. A., & Stout, W. F. (1996b). Simulation studies of the 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.
37. Sandoval, J., & Miille, M. P. W. (1980). Accuracy of judgments of WISC-R item difficulty for minority groups. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 249-253.
38. Shealy, R., & Stout, W. F. (1993). A model-based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from group differences and detects test bias/DIF as well as item bias/DIF. Psychometrika, 58, 159-194.
39. Shepard, L. A., Camilli, G., & Averill, M. (1981). Comparison of six procedures for detecting test item bias using both internal and external ability criteria. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 317-375.
40. Snow, R. E., & Lohman, D. F. (1989). Implications of cognitive psychology for educational measurement. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 263-331). New York: MacMillan.
41. Stout, W., & Roussos, L. (1995). SIBTEST Manual. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Department of Statistics, Statistical Laboratory for Educational and Psychological Measurement.
42. Wiley, D. E. (1991). Test validity and invalidity reconsidered. In R. E. Snow & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), Improving inquiry in social science (pp. 75-107). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
43. 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.
44. Zwick, R., & Ercikan, K. (1989). Analysis of differential item functioning in the NAEP history assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 55-66.