Identifying possible sources of differential functioning using differential bundle functioning with polytomously scored data

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 205-225

  McCarty, F A ^a,d   Oshima, T C ^b   Raju, Nambury S ^c  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^d NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547458122     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08957340701301660     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Baker, F. B. (1993). EQUATE2: Computer program for equating two metrics in item response theory [Computer software]. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Laboratory of Experimental Design.
2. Browne, M. W., & Cudek, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
4. Candell, G. L., & Drasgow, F. (1988). An iterative procedure for linking matrices and assessing item bias in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 253-260.
5. Douglas, J. A., Roussos, L. A., & Stout, W. (1996). Item-bundle DIF hypothesis testing: Identifying suspect bundles and assessing their differential functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 465-484.
6. Fleer, P. F. (1993). A Monte Carlo assessment of a new measure of item and test bias (Doctoral dissertation, Illinois Institute of Technology, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54-04B, 2266.
7. Rowers, C. P., Oshima, T. C., & Raju, N. S. (1999). A description and demonstration of the polytomous-DFIT framework. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 309-326.
8. Gierl, M. J., Bisanz, J., Bisanz, G. L., & Boughton, K. A. (2003). Identifying content and cognitive skills that produce gender differences in mathematics: A demonstration of the multidimensionality-based DIF analysis paradigm. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40, 281-306.
9. Gierl, M. J., Bisanz, J., Bisanz, G. L., Boughton, K. A., & Khaliq, S. (2001). Illustrating the utility of differential bundle functioning analyses to identify and interpret group differences on achievement tests. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20, 26-36.
10. Gierl, M. J., & Khaliq, S. N. (2001). Identifying sources of differential item and bundle functioning on translated achievement tests: A confirmatory analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 164-187.
11. Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). The social skills rating system. Circle Pines, MD: American Guidance Services.
12. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
13. Joreskog, K. J., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software.
14. Keogh, B. K., & Bernheimer, L. P. (1998). Concordance between mothers' and teachers' perceptions of behavior problems of children with developmental delays. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 6, 33-41.
15. Longford, N. T, Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1993). Stability of MH D-DIF statistics across populations. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp.171-196). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
16. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
17. Maurer, T., Raju, N. S., & Collins, W. (1998). Peer and subordinate performance appraisal measurement equivalence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 693-702.
18. McGee, R. & Feehan, M. (1991). Are girls with problems of attention underrecognized? Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 13, 187-198.
19. Miller, M. D., & Oshima, T. C. (1992). Effect of sample size, number of biased items, and magnitude of bias on a two-stage item bias estimation method. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 381-388.
20. Muraki, E., & Bock, R. D. (1993). PARSCALE2: IRT based test scoring and item analysis for graded open-ended exercises and performance tasks [Computer software]. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
21. Oshima, T. C., Raju, N. S., Flowers, C. P., & Slinde, J. A. (1998). Differential bundle functioning using the DFIT framework: Procedures for identifying possible sources of differential functioning. Applied Measurement in Education, 11, 353-369.
22. Oshima, T. C., Raju, N. S., & Nanda, A. O. (2006). A new method for assessing the statistical significance in the Differential Functioning of Items and Tests (DFIT) Framework. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43, 1-17.
23. Raju, N. S. (1997). DFITPU: A Fortran program for calculating DIF/DTF [Computer software]. Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology.
24. Raju, N. S. (1999). Some notes on the DFIT framework. Unpublished manuscript, Illinois Instititute of Technology, Chicago.
25. Raju, N. S., Oshima, T. C., Fortmann, K., Nering, M., & Kim, W. (2006, February). The new significance test for Raju's polytomous DFIT. Paper presented at New Directions in Psychological Measurement With Model-Based Approaches Conference. Atlanta, GA.
26. Raju, N. S., van der Linden, W. J., & Fleer, P. F. (1995). IRT-based internal measures of differential functioning of items and tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 353-368.
27. Rowe, D. C., & Kandel, D. (1997). In the eye of the beholder? Parental ratings of externalizing and internalizing symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25(4), 265-275.
28. Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph, No. 17.
29. Shealy, R., & Stout, W. (1993a). An item response theory model for test bias. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 213-316). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
30. Shealy, R., & Stout, W. (1993b). A model-based standardization approach that separates true DIF/bias from group differences and detects test bias/DTF as well as item bias/DIF. Psychometrika, 58, 159-194.
31. Tate, R. (2002). Test dimensionality. In J. Tindal & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Large-scale assessment programs for all students: Validity, technical adequacy, and implementation (pp. 181-211). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
32. Wainer, H., Sireci, S. G., & Thissen, D. (1991). Differential testlet functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 197-220.
33. Yen, W. M. (1993). Scaling performance assessments: Strategies for managing local item dependence. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 187-213.