A Bayesian method for studying DIF: A cautionary tale filled with surprises and delights

Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 363-384

  Wang, Xiaohui ^a   Bradlow, Eric T ^b,d,f   Wainer, Howard ^c,d   Muller, Eric S ^c,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^c National Board of Medical Examiners

^d UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^e NATIONAL BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS   (United States)

^f and Education ^*

Author keywords

Bayesian method; DIF; Mantel Haenszel; Testlet

Indexed keywords

EID: 52049091473     PISSN: 10769986     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/1076998607306080     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Austen, J (1813). Pride and Prejudice. London: T. Egerton, Military Library, Whitehall.
2. Bradlow, ET, H Wainer, and X Wang (1999). A Bayesian random effects model for testlets. Psychometrika, 64, 153-168.
3. Breslow, NE (1981). Odds ratio estimators when the data are sparse. Biometrika, 68, 73-84.
4. Clauser, BE, KM Mazor, and RK Hambleton (1991). Influence of the criterion variable on the identification of differentially functioning test items using the Mantel-Haenszel statistic. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15, 353-359.
5. Clauser, BE, KM Mazor, and RK Hambleton (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.
6. Clauser, BE, KM Mazor, and RK Hambleton (1994). The effect of score group width on the detection of differentially functioning items with the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31, 67-78.
7. Donoghue, JR, PW Holland, and DT Thayer (1993). A Monte Carlo study of factors that affect the Mantel-Haenszel and standardization measures of differential item functioning. In PW Holland and H Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 137-166). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Dorans, NJ, and PW Holland (1993). DIF detection and description: Mantel-Haenszel and standardization. In PW Holland and H Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 35-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9. Gelman, A, JB Carlin, HS Stern, and DB Rubin (1995). Bayesian data analysis. London: Chapman & Hall.
10. Geman, D, and S Geman (1984). Stochastic relaxation, Gibbs distributions and the Bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 6, 721-741.
11. Gibbons, RD, and DR Hedeker (1992). Full-information bi-factor analysis. Psychometrika, 57, 423-436.
12. Hauck, WH (1979). The large-sample variance of the Mantel-Haenszel estimator of a common odds ratio. Biometrics, 35, 817-819.
13. Holland, PW, and DT Thayer (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H Wainer and H Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129-146). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Holland, PW, and H Wainer (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Little, RJA, and DB Rubin (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: John Wiley.
16. Lord, FM (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Mantel, N, and W Haenszel (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 719-748.
18. Mazor, KM, BE Clauser, and RK Hambleton (1992). The effect of sample size on the functioning of the Mantel-Haenszel statistic. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 443-451.
19. Mazor, KM, BE Clauser, and RK Hambleton (1994). Identification of non-uniform differential item functioning using a variation of the Mantel-Haenszel statistic. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 284-291.
20. Rogers, HJ, and H Swaminathan (1993). A comparison of the logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 105-116.
21. Thissen, D, L Steinberg, and H Wainer (1988). Use of item response theory in the study of group differences in trace lines. In H Wainer and H Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 147-169). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. Wainer, H, ET Bradlow, and Z Du (2000). Testlet response theory: An analog for the 3-PL useful in adaptive testing. In WJ van der Linden and CAW Glas (Eds.), Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice (pp. 245-270). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
23. Wainer, H, ET Bradlow, and X Wang (2007). Testlet response theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24. Wang, X, ET Bradlow, and H Wainer (2004). User's guide for SCORIGHT (Version 3.0): A computer program for scoring tests built of testlets including a module for covariate analysis. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services. Research Report 04-49.
25. Zwick, R, JR Donoghue, and A Grima (1993). Assessment of differential item functioning for performance tasks. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 235-251.