Effects of average signed area between two item characteristic curves and test purification procedures on the DIF detection via the Mantel-Haenszel method

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 113-144

  Wang, Wen Chung ^a   Su, Ya Hui ^a  

^a NATIONAL CHUNG CHENG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3042656513     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15324818ame1702_2     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Ankenmann, R. D., Witt, E. A., & Dunbar, S.B. (1999). An investigation of the power of the likelihood ratio goodness-of-fit statistic in detecting differential item functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 277-300.
2. Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability. In F. M. Lord & M. R. Novick (Eds.), Statistical theories of mental test scores (pp. 397-479). Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
3. Budgell, G. R., Raju, N. S., & Quartetti, D. A. (1995). Analysis of differential item functioning in translated assessment instruments. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 309-321.
4. 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. 397-437). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
5. 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.
6. Chilisa, B. (2000). Towards equity in assessment: Grafting gender-fair assessment. Assessment in Education, 7, 61-81.
7. 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.
8. Clauser, B., Mazor, K., & Hambleton, R. K. (1994). The effects of score group width on the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31, 67-78.
9. Cohen A, S., Kim, S., & Wollack, J. A. (1996). An investigation of the likelihood ratio test for detection of differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 15-26.
10. Donoghue, J. R., Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1993). A Monte Carlo study of factors that affect the Mantel-Haenszel and standardization measures of differential item functioning. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp.137-166). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
11. Fidalgo, A. M., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Muñiz, J. (2000). Effects of amount of DIF, test length, and purification type on robustness and power of Mantel-Haenszel procedures. Methods of Psychological Research, 5(3), 43-53.
12. Hidalgo-Montesinos, M. D., & Lopez-Pina, J. A. (2002). Two-stage equating differential item functioning detection under the graded response model with the Raju area measures and the Lord statistic. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 32-44.
13. Holland, W. P. (1985, October). On the study of differential item performance without IRT. Proceedings of the Military Testing Association, 1, 282-287.
14. Holland, W. P., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp.129-145). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
15. Huang, C. D., Church, A. T., & Katigbak, M. S. (1997). Identifying cultural differences in items and traits: Differential item functioning in the NEO personality inventory. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 28, 192-218.
16. Jodoin, M. G., & Gierl, M. J. (2001). Evaluating type I error and power rates using an effect size measure with the logistic regression procedure for DIF detection. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 329-349.
17. Kim, S., & Cohen, A. S. (1995). A comparison of Lord's chi-square, Raju's area measures, and the likelihood ratio test on detection of differential item functioning. Applied Measurement in Education, 8, 291-312.
18. Kingston, N., Leary, L., & Wightman, L. (1988). An exploratory study of the applicability of item response theory methods to the Graduate Management Admissions Test (GMAC Occasional Papers). Princeton, NJ: Graduate Management Admissions Council.
19. Li, H., & Stout, W. (1996). A new procedure for detection of crossing DIF. Psychometrika, 61, 647-677.
20. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
21. Maller, S. J. (2001). Differential item functioning in the WISC-III: Item parameters for boys and girls in the national standardization sample. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 793-817.
22. Mantel, N., & Haenszel, W. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 719-748.
23. Mazor, K. M., & Clauser, B. E. (1994). Identification of non-uniform differential item functioning using a variation of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 284-291.
24. Miller, M. D., & Linn, R. L. (1988). Invariance of item parameters with variations in instructional coverage. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25, 205-219.
25. 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.
26. Narayanan, P., & Swaminathan, H. (1994). Performance of the Mantel-Haenszel and simultaneous item bias procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 315-328.
27. Narayanan, P., & Swaminathan, H. (1996). Identification of items that show nonuniform DIF Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 257-274.
28. Penfield, R. D. (2001). Assessing differential item functioning among multiple groups: A comparison of three Mantel-Haenszel procedures. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 235-259.
29. Raju, N. S. (1988). The area between two item characteristic curves. Psychometrika, 53, 495-502.
30. Raju, N. S., van der Linden, W. T., & Fleer, P. F. (1995). IRT-based internal measures of differential functioning of items and tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 353-368.
31. Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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. Roussos, L. A., Schnipke, D. L., & Pashley, P. J. (1999). A generalized formula for the Mantel-Haenszel differential item functioning parameter. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 293-322.
34. Shealy, R., & Stout, W. (1993). A model-based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from group ability differences and detects test bias/DTF as well as item bias/DIF. Psychometrika, 58, 159-194.
35. Soper, J. C., & Walstad, W. B. (1987). Test of economic literacy: Examiner's manual (2nd ed.). New York: National Council on Economic Education.
36. Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 361-370.
37. Teresi, J. A., Golden, R. R., Cross, P. S., Gurland, B. J., Kleinman, M., & Wilder, D. E. (1995). Item bias in cognitive screening measures: Comparisons of elderly White, Afro-American, Hispanic and high and low education subgroups. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 48, 473-483.
38. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1988). Use of item response theory in the study of group differences in trace lines. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 147-169). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
39. Uttaro, T., & Millsap, R. E. (1994). Factors influencing the Mantel-Haenszel procedure in the detection of differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 15-25.
40. van der Flier, H., Mellenbergh, G. J., Adér, H. J., & Wijn, M. (1984). An iterative item bias detection method. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 131-146.
41. Walstad, W. B., & Robson, D. (1997). Differential item functioning and male-female differences on multiple-choice tests in economics. The Journal of Economic Education, 28, 155-171.
42. Wang, W. C. (2001, September). Effects of anchor item methods on the detection of differential item functioning within the family of Rasch models. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Chinese Psychological Association, Chia-Yi, Taiwan.
43. Wang, W. C., & Yeh, Y.-L. (2003). Effects of anchor item methods on differential item functioning detection with the likelihood ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 1-20.
44. Zimowski, M. F., Muraki, E., Mislevy, R. J., & Bock, R. D. (1996). BILOG-MG: Multiple-group IRT analysis and test maintenance for binary items [Computer software]. Chicago: Scientific Software.
45. Zwick, R. (1990). When do item response function and Mantel-Haenszel definitions of differential item functioning coincide? Journal of Educational Statistics, 15, 185-197.
46. Zwick, R., Donoghue, J. R., & Grima, A. (1993). Assessment of differential item functioning for performance tasks. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 233-251.