Operating characteristics of the DIF MIMIC approach using Jöreskog's covariance matrix with ML and WLS estimation for short scales

Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 573-588

  Gelin, Michaela N ^a,b   Zumbo, Bruno D ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b CTB MCGRAW HILL   (United States)

^c Department of Statistics ^*

Author keywords

Monte Carlo simulation; Multiple causes model for DIF; Type I error

Indexed keywords

EID: 56249121211     PISSN: 15389472     EISSN: 15389472     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.22237/jmasm/1193890860     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49, 155-73.
2. Andresen, E.M., Malmgren, J.A., Carter, W.B., & Patrick, D.L. (1994). Screening for depression in well older adults: Evaluation of a short form of the CES-D. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 10, 77-84.
3. Babakus, E., Ferguson, C.E., & Jöreskog, K. (1987). The sensitivity of confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis to violations of measurement scale and distributional assumptions. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 222-228.
4. Bollen, K.A., & Barb, K.H. (1981). Pearson's r and coarsely categorized measures. American Sociological Review, 46, 232-239.
5. Bradley, J. V. (1978). Robustness? British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 31, 144-152.
6. Byrne, B.M. (1998). Structural equation modelling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. Clark, V.A., Aneshensel, C.S., Frerichs, R.R., & Morgan, T.M. (1981). Analysis of effects of sex and age in response to items on the CES-D scale. Psychiatry Research, 5, 171-181.
8. Curran, P.J., Bollen, K.A., Paxton, P., Kirby, J., & Chen, F. (2002). The noncentral chi-square distribution in misspecified structural equation models: Finite sample results from a Monte Carlo simulation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 37, 1-36.
9. De Champlain, A., & Gessaroli, M.E. (1998). Assessing the dimensionality of item response matrices with small sample sizes and short test lengths. Applied Measurement in Education, 11, 231-253.
10. DiStefano, C. (2002). The impact of categorization with confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 327-346.
11. Fidalog, A.M., Mellenbergh, G.J., & Mufiiz, J. (2000). Effects of amount of DIF, test length, and purification type on robustness and power of Mantel-Haenszel procedures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 5(3), 1-11. Retrieved October 25, 2004, from http://www.mpr-online.de
12. French, A.W., & Miller, T.R. (1996). Logistic regression and its use in detecting differential item functioning in polytomous items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 315-332.
13. Gallo, J.J., Anthony, J.C, & Muthén, B.O. (1994). Age differences in the symptoms of depression: A latent trait analysis. Journal of Gerontology, 49, 251-264.
14. Golding, J.M. (1988). Gender differences in depressive symptoms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 61-74.
15. Hertzog, C., Van Alstine, J., Usala, P.D., Hultsch, D.F., & Dixon, R. (1990). Measurement properties of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale (CESD) in older populations. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 64-72.
16. Jöreskog, K.G. (2002, June). Analysis of ordinal variables 5: Covariates. Retrieved January 6, 2004 from http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/ column11.htm.
17. Jöreskog, K.G., & Goldberger, A.S. (1975). Estimation of a model with multiple indicators and multiple causes of a single latent variable. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70, 631-639.
18. Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
19. Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (2003a). PRELIS (Version 2.51) [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
20. Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (2003b). LISREL (Version 8.54) [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
21. Mantel, N., & Haenszel, W.M. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 719-748.
22. Mast, B.T., & Lichtenburg, P.A. (2000). Assessment of functional abilities among geriatric patients: A MIMIC model of the Functional Independence Measure. Rehabilitation Psychology, 45, 94-64.
23. Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor invariance and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525-543.
24. Meredith, W., & Millsap, R. (1992). On the misuse of manifest variables in the detection of measurement bias. Psychometrika, 57, 289-311.
25. Micceri, T. (1989). The unicorn, the normal curve, and other improbable creatures. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 156-166.
26. Millsap, R., & Meredith, W. (1992). Inferential conditions in the statistical detection of measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 389-402.
27. Moustaki, I., Jöreskog, K. G., & Mavridis, D. (2004). Factor models for ordinal variables with covariate effects on the manifest and latent variables: A comparison of LISREL and IRT approaches. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 487-513.
28. Muñiz, J., Hambleon, R.K., & Xing, D. (2001). Small sample studies to detect flaws in item translations. International Journal of Testing, 1, 115-135.
29. Muthén, B.O. (1989). Using item-specific instructional information in achievement modelling. Psychometrika, 54, 385-396.
30. Muthén, B., & Kaplan, D. (1992). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables: A note on the size of the model. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 45, 19-30.
31. Muthén, B.O., Tam, W.Y., Muthén, L.K., Stolzenberg, R.M., & Hollis, M. (1993). Latent variable modeling in the LISCOMP Framework: Measurement of attitudes toward career choice. In D. Krebs & P. Schmidt (Eds.), New directions in attitude measurement, Festschrift for Karl Schuessler (pp. 277-290). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
32. O'Brien, R.M. (1979). The use of Pearson's r with ordinal data. American Sociological Review, 44, 851-857.
33. Olsson, U. (1979). On the robustness of factor analysis against crude classification of the observations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14, 485-500.
34. Radloff, L.S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 385-401.
35. Rigdon, E.E., & Ferguson, C.E. (1991). The performance of the polychoric correlation coefficient and selected fitting functions in confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 491-497.
36. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37. Sheehan, T.J., Fifield, J., Reisine, S., & Tennen, H. (1995). The measurement structure of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 507-521.
38. Shimizu, Y., & Zumbo, B. D. (2005). A Logistic Regression for Differential Item Functioning Primer. Japan Language Testing Association Journal, 7, 110-124.
39. Wothke, W. (1993). Nonpositive definite matrices in structural modeling. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 256-293). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
40. Zumbo, B. D. (2005). Structural Equation Modeling and Test Validation. In Brian Everitt and David C Howell, Encyclopedia of Behavioral Statistics, (pp. 1951-1958). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
41. Zumbo, B.D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and likert-type (ordinal) item scores. Ottawa, ON: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.
42. Zumbo, B.D. (2007). Three generations of differential item functioning (DIF) analyses: Considering where it has been, where it is now, and where it is going. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4, 223-233.
43. Zumbo, B. D., & Gelin, M.N. (2005). A Matter of Test Bias in Educational Policy Research: Bringing the Context into Picture by Investigating Sociological / Community Moderated (or Mediated) Test and Item Bias. Educational Research and Policy Studies, 4, 223-233.
44. Zumbo, B.D., Gelin, M.N., & Hubley, A.M. (2002). The construction and use of psychological tests and measures. Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Publishing (UNESCO-EOLSS Publishing).
45. Zumbo, B.D., & Hubley, A.M. (2003). Item bias. In Rocío Fernández-Ballesteros (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychological assessment (pp. 505-509). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press.
46. Zwick, R. (1990). When do item response function and Mantel-Haenszel definitions of differential item functioning coincide? Journal of Educational Statistics, 15, 185-197.