Does item-level DIF manifest itself in scale-level analyses? Implications for translating language tests

Language Testing

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 136-147

  Zumbo, Bruno D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3242656525     PISSN: 02655322     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1191/0265532203lt248oa     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Byrne, B. M. 1998: Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2. Camilli, G. and Shepard, L. A. 1994: Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3. Clauser, B. E. and Mazor, K. M. 1998: Using statistical procedures to identify differential item functioning test items. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 17, 31-44.
4. Ellis, B. B. and Mead, A. D. 2000: Assessment of the measurement equivalence of a Spanish translation of the 16PF questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement 60, 787-807.
5. Ercikan, K. 1998: Translation effects in international assessments. International Journal of Educational Research 29, 543-553.
6. Hambleton, R. K. and Patsula, L. 1998: Adapting tests for use in multiple languages and cultures. Social Indicators Research 45, 153-171.
7. Hambleton, R. K. and Patsula, L. 1999: Increasing the validity of adaptive tests: myths to be avoided and guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. Journal of Applied Testing Technology 1, 1-11.
8. Holland, P. W. and Thayer, D. T. 1988: Differential item functioning and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In Wainer, H. and Braun, H. I., editors, Test validity. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 129-145.
9. Jöreskog, K. G. 1971: Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika 36, 409-426.
10. Jöreskog, K. G. and Sörbom, D. 1996: LISREL 8 User's Guide. Chicago, IL: scientific Software.
11. Langenfeld, T. E. 1997: Test fairness: internal and external investigations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 16, 20-26.
12. Luecht, R. 1996: MIRTGEN 1.0 [Computer Software]. Author.
13. Steenkamp, J. E. M. and Baumgartner, H. 1998: Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 25, 78-90.
14. Vandenberg, R. J. and Lance, C. E. 2000: A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods 3, 4-69.
15. van der Linden, W. J. 1998: A discussion of some methodological issues in international assessments. International Journal of Educational Research 29, 569-577.
16. van de Vijver, F. J. R. and Hambleton, R. K. 1996: Translating tests: some practical guidelines. European Psychologist 1, 89-99.
17. Waller, N. (undated) EZDIF [Computer Software]. Author. Available online at: http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/depts/psychFandFhd/faculty/wallern/ (accessed 2 December 2002).
18. 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, ON: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense. Available online at: http://www.educ.ubc.ca/faculty/zumbo/DIF/index.html (accessed 2 December 2002).
19. Zwick, R. and Ercikan, K. 1989: Analysis of differential item functioning in the NAEP history assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement 26, 55-66.