The performance of some observed and unobserved conditional invariance techniques for the detection of differential item functioning

Quality and Quantity

Volumn 38, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 681-702

  Welkenhuysen Gybels, Jerry ^a,b  

^a RESEARCH FOUNDATION FLANDERS FWO   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Differential item functioning; Log linear model; Logistic regression model; Nondirectional DIF; Nonuniform DIF; Signed area; SOS1; SOS3; Uniform DIF; Unsigned area

Indexed keywords

EID: 12744258099     PISSN: 00335177     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11135-004-5948-z     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Agresti, A. (1996). An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2. Camilli, G. and Sheppard, L. (1994). Methods for Identifying Biased Test Items. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
3. Candell, G. and Drasgow, F. (1988). 'An iterative procedure for linking metrics and assesing item bias in item response theory'. Applied Psychological Measurement 12: 253-260.
4. Feinstein, Z. (1995). Effects of differing item parameters on closed-interval statistics, Applied Psychological Measurement 19: 131-142.
5. Holland, P. and Thayer, D. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel statistic. In: H. Wainer and H. Braun (eds), Test Validity, Hillsdale: Erlbaum, pp. 129-145.
6. Kim, S.-H. and Cohen, A. (1992). Effects of linking methods on the detection of DIF, Applied Psychological Measurement 16: 51-66.
7. Lautenschlager, G. and Park, D. (1988). IRT item bias detection procedures. Issues of model misspecification, robustness, and parameter linking, Applied Psychological Measurement 12: 365-376.
8. Linn, R., Levine, M. Hastings, C. and Wardrop, J. (1981). Item bias in a test of reading comprehension, Applied Psychological Measurement 5(2): 159-173.
9. Lord, F. (1980). Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Mellenbergh, G. (1982). Contingency table models for assessing item bias,. Journal of Educational Statistics 7(2): 105-118.
11. Mellenbergh, G. (1989). Item bias and item response theory, International journal of educational Research 13: 127-143.
12. Meredith, R. (1990). When do item response function and Mantel-Haenszel definitions of differential item functioning coincide, Journal of Educational Statistics 15: 185-197.
13. Meredith, W. and Millsap, R. (1992). On the misuse of manifest variables in the detection of measurement bias, Psychometrika 57: 289-311.
14. Miller, M. and Oshima, T. (1992). Effect of sample size, number of biased items, and mangnitude of bias on a two-stage item bias estimation method, Applied Psychological Measurement 16(4): 381-388.
15. Millsap, R. and Everson, H. (1993). Methodology review: statistical approaches to assessing measurement bias, Applied Psychological Measurement 17: 297-334.
16. Millsap, R. and Meredith, W. (1992). Inferential conditions in the statistical detection of measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement 16: 389-402.
17. Narayanan, P. and Swaminathan, H. (1996). Identification of items that show nonuniform bias, Applied Psychological Measurement 20(3): 257-274.
18. Raju, N. (1988). The area between two item characteristic curves, Psychometrika 53: 495-502.
19. Raju, N. (1990). Determining the significance of estimated signed and unsigned areas between two item response functions, Applied Psychological Measurement 14(2): 197-207.
20. Rogers, H. and Swaminathan, H. (1993). A comparison of logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures for detecting differential item functioning, Applied Psychological Measurement 17(2): 105-116.
21. Rudner, L., Getson, P. and Knight, D. (1980). Biased item detection techniques, Journal of Educational Statistics 5: 213-223.
22. Swamanithan, H. and Rogers, H. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures, Journal of Educational Measurement 27(4): 361-370.
23. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L. and Gerrard, M. (1986). Beyond group mean differences: the concept of item bias. Psychological Bulletin 99: 118-128.
24. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L. and Wainer, H. (1988). Use of item reponse theory in the study of group differences in trace lines, In: H. Wainer and H. Braun (eds), Test Validity. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 147-169.
25. van de Vijver, F. and Leung, K. (1997). Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
26. Van Der Flier, H., Mellenbergh, G., Adr, H. and Wijn, M. (1984). An iterative item bias detection method, Journal of Educational Measurement 21(2): 131-145.
27. Von Neuman, J. (1951). Various techniques used in connection with random digits, Standards Applied Mathematics Series 12: 36-38.
28. Welkenhuysen-Gybels, J. and Billiet, J. (2002). A comparison of techniques for detecting cross-cultural inequivalence at the item level, Quality & Quantity 36: (In Press).