Effects of ability scale purification on the identification of dif

European Journal of Psychological Assessment

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 9-15

  Navas Ara, María J ^a   Gómez Benito, Juana ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE EDUCACIÓN A DISTANCIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Ability purification; Differential item functioning; Item response theory; Logistic regression; Logit model; Mantel Haenszel; Restricted factor analysis

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036002318     PISSN: 10155759     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027//1015-5759.18.1.9     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Assessment Systems Corporation (1988). User's manual for the MicroCAT testing system. St. Paul, MN: Assessment Systems Corporation.
2. Camilli, G., & Shepard, L.A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
3. Candell, G.L., & Drasgow, F. (1988). An iterative procedure for linking metrics and assessing item bias in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 253-260.
4. Candell, G.L., & Hulin, C.L. (1986). Cross-language and cross-cultural comparisons: Independent sources of information about item non-equivalence. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 417-440.
5. Clauser, B., Mazor, K., & Hambleton, R.K. (1993). The effects of purification of the matching criterion on the identification of dif using the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Applied Measurement in Education, 6, 269-279.
6. Cole, N.S., & Moss, P.A. (1989). Bias in test use. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement. New York: Macmillan.
7. Drasgow, F. (1987). Study of the measurement bias of two standardized psychological tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 19-29.
8. Flier, H. van der, Mellenbergh, G.J., Ader, H.J., & Wijn, M. (1984). An iterative item bias detection method. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 131-145.
9. Gómez, J., & Navas, M.J. (1996). Detección del funcionamiento diferencial de los items mediante regresión logística: Purificación paso a paso de la habilidad [Dif detection through logistic regression: Stepwise ability purification]. Psicológica, 17, 397-411.
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. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Holland, P.W., & Wainer, H. (Eds.). (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Hulin, C.L., & Mayer, L. (1986). Psychometric equivalence of a translation of the Job Descriptive Index into Hebrew. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 83-94.
13. Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörborm, D. (1993a). LISREL 8 User's reference guide. Chicago, IL: SSI.
14. Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörborm, D. (1993b). PRELIS 2 User's reference guide. Chicago, IL: SSI.
15. Kim, S., & Cohen, A.S. (1992). Effects of linking methods on detection of dif. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29(1), 51-66.
16. Kok, F.G., Mellenbergh, G.H., & Flier, H. van der (1985). Detecting experimentally induced item bias using the iterative logit method. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22, 295-303.
17. Lantenschlager, G., Flaherty, V.L., & Park, D. (1994). IRT differential item functioning: An examination of ability scale purification. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(1), 21-31.
18. Lautenschlager, G., & Park, D. (1988). IRT item bias detection procedures: Issues of model misspecification, robustness, and parameter linking. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 365-376.
19. Lim, R.G., & Drasgow, F. (1990). Evaluation of two methods for estimating item response theory parameters when assessing differential item functioning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 164-174.
20. Lord, F.M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
21. Lucassen, W. (1991). Iterative item bias detection. Leiden.
22. Marco, G.L. (1977). Item characteristic curve solutions to three intractable testing problems. Journal of Educational Measurement, 14, 139-160.
23. Mellenbergh, G.J. (1989). Item bias and item response theory. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 127-143.
24. Miller, M.D., & Oshima, T.C. (1992). Effect of sample size, number of biased items and magnitude of bias on a two-stage item bias estimation method. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 381-388.
25. Millsap, R.E., & Everson, H.T (1993). Methodology review: Statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 297-334.
26. Oort, F.J. (1992). Using restricted factor analysis to detect item bias. Methodika, VI, 150-166.
27. Oort, F.J. (1993). Theory of violators: Assessing unidimensionality of psychological measures. In R. Steyer, K.F. Wender, & K.F. Widaman (Eds.), Psychometric methodology. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.
28. Park, D.G. (1988). Investigations of item response theory item bias detection. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens.
29. Park, D.G., & Lautenschlager, G.J. (1990). Improving IRT item bias detection with iterative linking and ability scale purification. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 163-173.
30. Raju, N.S. (1988). The area between two item characteristic curves. Psychometrika, 53, 495-502.
31. Raju, N.S. (1990). Determining the significance of estimated signed and unsigned areas between two item response functions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 197-207.
32. Rogers, H.J., & Swaminathan, H. (1993). A comparison of logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 105-116.
33. Rudner, L.M., Getson, P.R., & Knight, D.L. (1980). Biased item detection techniques. Journal of Educational Statistics, 5, 213-233.
34. Scheuneman, J.D., & Bleistein, C.A. (1989). A consumer's guide to statistics for identifying differential item functioning. Applied Measurement in Education, 2, 255-275.
35. Segall, D.O. (1983). Test characteristic curves, item bias and transformation to a common metric in IRT: A methodological artifact with serious consequences and a simple solution. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois, Department of Psychology.
36. Shepard, L.A., Camilli, G., & Williams, D.M. (1984). Accounting for statistical artifacts in item bias research. Journal of Educational Statistics, 9, 93-128.
37. Shepard, L.A., Camilli, G., & Williams, D.M. (1985). Validity of approximation techniques for detecting item bias. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22(2), 77-105.
38. Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H.J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 361-370.