Examining the relationship between race-based differential item functioning and item difficulty

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 68, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 537-553

  Scherbaum, Charles A ^a   Goldstein, Harold W ^a  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

Differential item functioning; Item difficulty; Racial groups; Standardized test

Indexed keywords

EID: 47749107207     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: 15523888     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013164407310129     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Baker, F.B. (1997). EQUATE 2.1: Computer program for equating two metrics in item response theory [Computer software]. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Laboratory of Experimental Design.
2. Bock, R.D., Gibbons, R., & Muraki, E. (1988). Full-information item factor analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 261-280.
3. Burton, E., & Burton, N. (1993). The effect of item screening on test scores and test characteristics. In P. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 321-335). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Camara, W., & Sathy, V. (2004, April). College Board response to Harvard Educational Review article by Freedle. Retrieved on September 1, 2005, from http://www.collegeboard.com/research/pdf/051425Harvard_050406.pdf
5. Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6. DeMars, C. (2003, April). Missing data and IRT item parameter estimation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
7. Dorans, N.J. (2004). Freedle's Table 2: Fact or fiction ? Harvard Educational Review, 74, 62-72.
8. Dorans, N., & Kulick, E. (1986). Demonstrating the utility of the standardization approach to assessing unexpected differential item performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23, 355-368.
9. Dorans, N.J., & Zeller, K. (2003). Examining Freedle's claims about bias and his proposed solution: Dated data, inappropriate measurement, and incorrect and unfair scoring (ETS RR-04-26). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
10. Drasgow, F., Levine, M.V., Tsien, S., Williams, B., & Mead, A. (1995). Fitting polytomous item response theory models to multiple-choice tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 143-165.
11. Embretson, S.E., & Reise, S.P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12. Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1988). Relationship between item characteristics and an index of differential item functioning (DIF) for the four GRE verbal item types (ETS RR-88-29). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
13. Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1990). Item difficulty of four verbal item types and an index of differential functioning for Black and White examinees. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 329-343.
14. Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1992). The prediction of GRE reading comprehension item difficulty for expository prose passages for each of three item types: Main ideas, inferences and explicit statements (GRE Board Professional Report 87-10P; ETS RR-91-59). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
15. Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1997). Predicting Black and White differential item functioning in verbal analogy performance. Intelligence, 24, 417-444.
16. Freedle, R., Kostin, I., & Schwartz, L. (1987). A comparison of strategies used by Black and White students in solving SAT verbal analogies using a thinking aloud method and a match percentage-correct design (ETS RR-87-48). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
17. Freedle, R.O. (2003). Correcting the SAT's ethnic and social-class bias: A method for reestimating SAT scores. Harvard Educational Review, 73, 1-44.
18. Hambleton, R.K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H.J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
19. Hattrup, K., Schmitt, N., & Landis, R.S. (1992). Equivalence of constructs measured by job-specific and commercially available aptitude tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 298-308.
20. Holland, P., & Wainer, H. (Eds.). (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21. Hough, L.M., Oswald, F.L., & Ployhart, R.E. (2001). Determinants, detection and amelioration of adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: Issues, evidence and lessons learned. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 152-194.
22. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). (1999). IEA CIVIC EDUCATION STUDY, 1999 [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR version) [Electronic file]. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education, National Center for Education Statistics [Producer], 1999 ; Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [Distributor], 2004.
23. Johanson, G.A. (1992). IRTDATA: An interactive or batch Pascal program for generating logistic item response data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 52.
24. Kulick, E., & Hu, P.G. (1989). Examining the relationship between differential item functioning and item difficulty (College Board Report No. 89-5; ETS RR-89-18). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
25. Millsap, R.E., & Everson, H.T. (1993). Methodology review: Statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 297-334.
26. O'Neill, K., & McPeek, W. (1993). Item and test characteristics that are associated with differential item functioning. In P. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 255-276). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27. Raju, N.S. (1998). DFIT4: A Fortran program for calculating DIF/DTF [Computer software]. Chicago: Illinois Institute of Technology.
28. Raju, N.S., van der Linden, W., & Fleer, P.F. (1995). IRT-based internal measures of differential functioning of items and tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 353-368.
29. Roth, P.L., Bevier, C.A., Bobko, P., Switzer, F.S.I., & Tyler, P. (2001). Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 54, 297-330.
30. Sackett, P., Schmitt, N., Ellingson, J., & Kabin, M. (2001). High-stakes testing in employment, credentialing, and higher education: Prospects in a post-affirmative-action world. American Psychologist, 56, 302-318.
31. Shepard, L., Camilli, G., & Williams, D. (1984). Accounting for statistical artifacts in item bias research. Journal of Educational Statistics, 9, 93-128.
32. Stocking, M.L., & Lord, F.M. (1983). Developing a common metric in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 201-210.
33. Thissen, D., Chen, W.R., & Bock, R.D. (2003). MULTILOG users' guide [Computer manual]. Chicago: Scientific Software.
34. Wainer, H., & Skorupski, W.P. (2005). Was it ethnic and social-class bias or statistical artifact? Logical and empirical evidence against Freedle's method for reestimating SAT scores. Chance, 18, 17-24.
35. Wilson, D.T., Wood, R., & Gibbons, R. (1991). TESTFACT: Test scoring, item statistics, and item factor analysis [Computer software]. Chicago: Scientific Software.