Detection of differential item functioning in large-scale state assessments: A study evaluating a two-stage approach

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 63, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 51-64

  Zenisky, April L ^a   Hambleton, Ronald K ^a   Robin, Frédéric ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

DIF detection; Large scale assessment; Standardization procedure; Two stagi DIF

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037273602     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013164402239316     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education, (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2. Camilli, G. (1993). The case against item bias detection techniques based on internal criteria: Do item bias procedures obscure test fairness issues? In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 397-413). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. 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.
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. 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: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. Dorans, N. J., & Kulick, E. (1986). Demonstrating the utility of the standardization approach to assessing the unexpected differential item functioning on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23, 355-368.
8. Drasgow, F., Chemyshenko, O. S., & Stark, S. (2001, January). Differential item functioning across ethnic, educational, and gender groups on the AICPA exam [Technical report]. Jersey City, NJ: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
9. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamental of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10. Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item functioning and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129-145). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (Eds.). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12. Robin, F. (2001). STDIF: Standardization-DIF analysis program [Computer program]. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, School of Education.
13. Shealy, R. T., & Stout, W. F. (1993). 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, 54, 159-194.
14. Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 361-370.
15. Zumbo, B. D. (1999, April). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item function-ing (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (ordinal) item scores. Ottawa, Canada: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.