Item and scale differential functioning of the Mini-Mental State Exam assessed using the Differential Item and Test Functioning (DFIT) framework

Medical Care

Volumn 44, Issue 11 SUPPL. 3, 2006, Pages

  Morales, Leo S ^a,e   Flowers, Claudia ^b   Gutierrez, Peter ^c   Kleinman, Marjorie ^d   Teresi, Jeanne A ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d NEW YORK STATE PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE   (United States)

^e U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES   (United States)

Author keywords

DFIT; DIF; Item response theory; Mini Mental State Examination; Spanish

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; CULTURAL FACTOR; DEMENTIA; EPIDEMIOLOGY; ETHNIC GROUP; ETHNOLOGY; HISPANIC; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; METHODOLOGY; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMETRY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES;

AGED; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DEMENTIA; ETHNIC GROUPS; HISPANIC AMERICANS; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; NEW YORK CITY; PSYCHOMETRICS; TRANSLATING;

EID: 33750303172     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000245141.70946.29     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Clauser BE, Mazor KM. Using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning test items. Educ Meas: Issues Pract. 1998;17:31-44.
2. Millsap RE, Everson HT. Methodology review: statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Appl Psychol Meas. 1993;17:297-334.
3. Raju NS, van der Linden WJ, Fleer PF. IRT-based internal measures of differential functioning of items and tests. Appl Psychol Meas. 1995;19:353-368.
4. Flowers CP, Oshima TC, Raju NS. A description and demonstration of the polytomous-DFIT framework. Appl Psychol Meas. 1999;23:309-326.
5. Camilli G, Shepard LA. Methods of Identifying Biased Test Items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1994.
6. Ellis BB, Mead AD. Assessment of the measurement equivalence of a Spanish translation of the 16PF questionnaire. Educ Psychol Meas. 2000;60:787-807.
7. Ramirez M, Teresi JA, Holmes D, et al. Differential Item Functioning (DIF) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE): overview, sample and issues of translation. Med Care 2006;44(Suppl 3):S95-S106.
8. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-Mental State: a practical guide for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:189-198.
9. van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK. Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory. New York, NY: Springer Verlag; 1997.
10. Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rodgers HJ. Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1991.
11. Yu C. Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes. [dissertation] University of California at Los Angeles. Los Angeles, CA; 2002.
12. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User's Guide. 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 2001.
13. Jones RN. Identification of measurement differences between English and Spanish language versions of the Mini-Mental State Examination: detecting differential item functioning using MIMIC modeling. Med Care. 2006;44(Suppl 3):S124-S133.
14. Samejima F. Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monogr. 1969;17.
15. Samejima F. A new family of models for the multiple-choice item. Research Report No. 79-4, Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee; 1979.
16. du Toit M. IRT from SSI. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International; 2003.
17. Baker FB. EQUATE 2.1: Computer program for equating two metrics in item response theory [Computer program]. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Laboratory of Experimental Design;1995.
18. Stocking ML, Lord FM. Developing a common metric in item response theory. Appl Psychol Meas. 1983;7:201-210.
19. Raju NS. DFIT5P: A Fortran program for calculating dichotomous DIF/DTF [computer program]. Chicago, IL: Illinois Institute of Technology; 1999.
20. Candell GL, Drasgow F. An iterative procedure for linking metrics and assessing item bias in item response theory. Appl Psychol Meas. 1988;12:253-260.
21. Collins WC, Edwards JE, Raju NS. Assessing differential functioning in a satisfaction scale. J Appl Psychol. 2000;85:451-461.
22. Fleer PF. A Monte Carlo assessment of a new measure of item and test bias. [dissertation] Illinois Institute of Technology. Dissertation Abstracts International 1993;54-04B, 2266.
23. Flowers CP, Oshima TC, Raju NS. A Monte Carlo assessment of DFIT with dichotomously-scored unidimensional tests. [dissertation] Georgia State University. Atlanta, GA; 1995.
24. Lord FM. Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1980.
25. Raju NS. The area between two item characteristic curves. Psychometrika. 1988;53:495-502.
26. Edelen Orlando M, Thissen D, Teresi JA, et al. Identification of differential item functioning using item response theory and the likelihood-based model comparison approach: application to the Mini-Mental State Examination. Med Care. 2006;44(Suppl 3):S134-S142.
27. Stewart AL, Nápoles-Springer AM. Advancing health disparities research: can we afford to ignore measurement issues? Med Care. 2003;41:1207-1220.