Power and type I error of the mean and covariance structure analysis model for detecting differential item functioning in graded response items

Multivariate Behavioral Research

Volumn 41, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 29-53

  González Romá, Vicente ^a   Hernández, Ana ^a   Gómez Benito, Juana ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VALENCIA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745711644     PISSN: 00273171     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15327906mbr4101_3     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Andersen, N., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the Team Climate Inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 235-258.
2. Ankemann, 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.
3. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
4. Bollen, K. A., & Barb, K. H. (1981). Person's r and coarsely categorized measures. American Sociological Review, 46, 232-239.
5. Bradley, J. V. (1978). Robustness? British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 31, 144-152.
6. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for equivalence of factorial invariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456-466.
7. Chan, D. (2000). Detection of Differential Item Functioning on the Kirton Adaptation-Innovation Inventory using multiple-group mean and covariance structure analyses. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 169-199.
8. Cheung, P. C., & Rensvold, R. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups: A reconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal of Management, 25, 1-27.
9. 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.
10. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
11. DiStefano, C. (2002). The impact of categorization with confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 327-346.
12. Dolan, C. V. (1994). Factor analysis of variables with 2,3,5 and 7 response categories: A comparison of categorical variable estimators using simulated data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 47, 309-326.
13. Ferrando, P. J. (1996). Calibration of invariant item parameters in a continuous item response model using the extended Lisrel measurement submodel. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 31, 419-439.
14. González-Romá, V., Tomás, I., Ferreras, D., & Hernández, A. (2005). Do items that measure self-perceived physical appearance function differentially across gender groups of adolescents? An application of the MACS model. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 157-171.
15. Hernández, A., & González-Romá, V. (2003). Evaluating the multiple-group mean and covariance structure analysis model for the detection of differential item functioning in polytomous ordered items. Psichotema, 15, 322-327.
16. Jöreskog, K. (2002, February 5). Analysis of ordinal variables 4: Multiple groups. Retrieved October 15, 2005, from www.philscience.com/economics/ ssicentral/lisrel/column10.htm
17. Jöreskog, K., & Sörborn, D. (1993). LISREL 8. Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
18. Kaplan, D., & George, R. (1995). A study of the power associated with testing factor mean differences under violations of factorial invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 2, 101-118.
19. Little, T. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 53-76.
20. Meade, A. W., & Lautenschlager, G. K. (2004) A Monte-Carlo study of confirmatory factor analytic tests of measurement equivalence/invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 60-72.
21. Mellenbergh, G. J. (1994). A unidimensional latent trait model for continuous item responses. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29, 223-236.
22. Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525-543.
23. Mooijaart, A. (1983). Two kinds of factor analysis for ordered categorical variables. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18, 423-441.
24. Muthén, B., & Kaplan, D. (1985). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Liken variables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 171-189.
25. 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.
26. Narayanan, P., & Swaminathan, H. (1996). Identification of items that show nonuniform DIF. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 257-274.
27. Olsson, U. (1979). On the robustness of factor analysis against crude classification of the observations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14, 485-500.
28. Oort, F. J. (1992). Using restricted factor analysis to detect item bias. Methodika, 6, 150-166.
29. Oort, F. J. (1998). Simulation study of item bias detection with restricted factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 5, 107-124.
30. Reise, S. P., Smith, L. S., & Furr, E. M. (2001). Invariance on the NEO PI-R neuroticism scale. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 83-110.
31. Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 552-566.
32. Rensvold, R. B., & Cheung, P. C. (1998). Testing measurement models for factorial invariance: A systematic approach. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 1017-1034.
33. Roussos, L. A., & Stout, W. F. (1996). Simulation studies of the effects of small sample size and studied item parameters on SIBTEST and Mantel-Haenszel type I error performance. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 215-230.
34. Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monographs, 34 (17).
35. Sörbom, D. (1974). A general method for studying differences in factor means and factor structures between groups. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 27, 229-239.
36. Sörborn, D. (1982). Structural equation models with structured means. In K. G. Jöreskog & H. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation (pp. 183-195). Amsterdam: North Holland.
37. 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.
38. Wasti, S. A., Bergman, M. E., Glomb, T. M., & Drasgow, F. (2000). Test of the cross-cultural generalizability of a model of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 766-778.
39. Zwick, R., Donaghue, J. R., & Grima, A. (1993). Assessment of differential item functioning for performance tasks. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 233-251.