Differential item functioning on the Mini-Mental State Examination: An application of the Mantel-Haenszel and standardization procedures

Medical Care

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

  Dorans, Neil J ^a   Kulick, Edward ^a  

^a EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

Differential item functioning; Mantel Haenszel; MMSE; Score equity; Standardization

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITIVE DEFECT; EPIDEMIOLOGY; ETHNIC GROUP; ETHNOLOGY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMETRY; STANDARD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); COGNITION DISORDERS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; ETHNIC GROUPS; HUMANS; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PSYCHOMETRICS; REFERENCE STANDARDS;

EID: 33750320098     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000245182.36914.4a     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Shepard LA. Definitions of bias. In: Berk RA, ed. Handbook of Methods for Detecting Test Bias. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1982:9-30.
2. Dorans NJ, Kulick E. Demonstrating the utility of the standardization approach to assessing unexpected differential item performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. J Educational Measure. 1986;23:355-368.
3. Dorans NJ, Kulick E. Assessing Unexpected Differential Item Performance of Female Candidates on SAT and TSWE Forms Administered in December 1977: An Application of the Standardization Approach (RR-83-9). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 1983.
4. Holland PW, Thayer D. Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In: Wainer H, Braun HI, eds. Test Validity. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988:129-145.
5. Dorans NJ, Holland PW. DIF detection and description: Mantel-Haenszel and standardization. In: Holland PW, Wainer H, eds. Differential Item Functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1993;35-66.
6. Yule GU. Notes on the theory of association of attributes in statistics. Biometrika. 1903;2:121-134.
7. Simpson EH. The interpretation of interaction contingency tables. J Royal Stat Soc (Series B). 1951;13:238-241.
8. Dorans NJ. Technical Review of Item Fairness Studies: 1975-1979 (SR-82-90). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 1982.
9. Dorans NJ, Schmitt AP, Bleistein CA. The standardization approach to assessing comprehensive differential item functioning. J Educational Measure. 1992;29:303-319.
10. Dorans NJ, Schmitt AP. Constructed response and differential item functioning: a pragmatic approach. In: Bennett RE, Ward WC, eds. Construction Versus Choice In Cognitive Measurement. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1993:135-165.
11. Zwick R, Dohoghue JR, Grima A. Assessment of differential item functioning for performance tasks. J Educational Measure. 1993;30:233-251.
12. Zwick R, Thayer DT. Evaluating the magnitude of differential item functioning in polytomous items. J Educational Behav Stat. 1996;21:187-201.
13. Mantel N, Haenszel WM. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959;22:719-748.
14. Holland PW, Thayer DT. An Alternative Definition of the ETS Delta Scale of Item Difficulty. (RR-85-43). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 1985.
15. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. 'Mini-mental state': a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatric Res. 1975;12:189-98.
16. Hambleton RK. Good practices for identifying differential item functioning. Med Care. 2006;44(Suppl 3):S182-S188.
17. Dorans NJ. Using population invariance to assess test score equity. J Educational Measure. 2004;41:43-68.
18. Dorans NJ, Lawrence IL. The Role of the Unit of Analysis in Dimensionality Assessment. (RR-99-14). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 1999.