Understanding parameter invariance in unidimensional IRT models

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 66, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 63-84

  Rupp, André A ^a   Zumbo, Bruno D ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Item parameter drift; Item response theory; Parameter invariance

Indexed keywords

EID: 31944438607     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: 15523888     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013164404273942     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Bock, R. D., Muraki, E., & Pfeiffenberger, W. (1988). Item pool maintenance in the presence of item parameter drift. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25, 275-285.
2. Clauser, B. E., & Mazor, K. M. (1998). Using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning items. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 31-45.
3. Davey, T., Oshima, T. C., & Lee, K. (1996). Linking multidimensional item calibrations. Applied Psychological Measurements, 20, 405-416.
4. Donoghue, J. R., & Isham, S. P. (1998). A comparison of procedures to detect item parameter drift. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 33-51.
5. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. Goldstein, H. (1983). Measuring changes in educational attainment over time: Problems and possibilities. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 369-377.
7. Hambleton, R. K. (1989). Principles and selected applications of item response theory. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 147-200). New York: Macmillan.
8. Hambleton, R. K., & Jones, R. W. (1993). Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12, 38-47.
9. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10. Junker, B. W. (1999). Some statistical models and computational methods that may be useful for cognitively-relevant assessment. Available at http://www.stat.cmu.edu/brian/nrc/cfa
11. Kaskowitz, G. S., & de Ayala, R. J. (2001). The effect of error in item parameter estimates on the test response function method of linking. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 39-52.
12. Li, Y. H., & Lissitz, R. W. (2000). An evaluation of the accuracy of multidimensional IRT linking. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 115-138.
13. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis, and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525-543.
15. Meredith, W., & Horn, J. (2001). The role of factorial invariance in modeling growth and change. In L. M. Collins & A. G. Sayer (Eds.), New methods for the analysis of change: Decade of behavior (pp. 203-240). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
16. Perline, R., Wright, B. D., & Wainer, H. (1979). The Rasch model as additive conjoint measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 237-255.
17. Rupp, A. A. (in press). Quantifying subpopulation differences for a lack of invariance using complex examinee profiles: An exploratory multi-group approach using functional data analysis. Educational Research and Evaluation.
18. Rupp, A. A., & Zumbo, B. D. (2003). Which model is best? Robustness properties to justify model choice among unidimensional IRT models under item parameter drift. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 49, 264-276.
19. Rupp, A. A., & Zumbo, B. D. (2004). A note on how to quantify and report whether item parameter invariance holds: When Pearson correlations are not enough. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 588-599.
20. Skrondal, A., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2004). Generalized latent variable modeling: Multilevel, longitudinal, and structural equation models. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.
21. Wells, C. S., Subkoviak, M. J., & Serlin, R. C. (2002). The effect of item parameter drift on examinee ability estimates. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 77-87.
22. van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.
23. Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (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.
24. Zumbo, B. D. (2003). Does item-level DIF manifest itself in scale-level analyses? Implications for translating language tests. Language Testing, 20, 136-147.