Freedle's Table 2: Fact or Fiction?

Harvard Educational Review

Volumn 74, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 62-72

  Dorans, Neil J ^a  

^a EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1842682904     PISSN: 00178055     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.17763/haer.74.1.8729105044552127     Document Type: Review

References (8)

1. 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.
2. Dorans, N.J., & Kulick, E. (1986). Demonstrating the utility of the standardization approach to assessing unexpected differential item performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23, 355-368.
3. Dorans, N.J., & Zeller, K. (2003). Examining Freedle's claims about bias and his proposed solution: Dated data, inappropriate measurement and incorrect and unfair scoring. Unpublished manuscript.
4. Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (1995), Test equating: Methods and practices. New York: Springer-Verlag.
5. Lawrence, I. M., Rigol, G. W., Van Essen, T., & Jackson, C. A. (2003). An historical perspective on the SAT 1926-2001 (College Board Research Report No. 03-03, ETS RR-03-10). New York: College Board.
6. Mathews, J. (2003, November). The bias question. Atlantic Monthly, pp. 130-140.
7. Schmitt, A. P., Holland, P. W., & Dorans, N.J. (1993). Evaluating of hypotheses about differential item functioning. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 281-315). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. 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.