Empirical selection of anchors for tests of differential item functioning

Applied Psychological Measurement

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 42-57

  Woods, Carol M ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Differential item functioning; Item bias; Item response theory; Likelihood ratio; Measurement invariance

Indexed keywords

EID: 58849137135     PISSN: 01466216     EISSN: 15523497     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0146621607314044     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Ankenmann, R.D., Witt, E.A., & Dunbar, S.B. (1999). An investigation of the power of the likelihood ratio goodness-of-fit statistic in detecting differential item functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 277-300.
2. * Balsis, S., Gleason, M.E., Woods, C.M., & Oltmanns, T.F. (2007). Age group bias in DSM-IV personality disorder criteria: An item response analysis. Psychology and Aging, 22, 171-185.
3. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 57, 289-300.
4. Bock, R.D., & Aitkin, M. (1981). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika, 46, 443-459.
5. * Bolt, D.M., Hare, R.D., Vitale, J.E., & Newman, J.P. (2004). A multigroup item response theory analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist- Revised. Psychological Assessment, 16, 155-168.
6. * Bolt, S.E., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2006). Comparing DIF across math and reading/language arts tests for students receiving a read-aloud accommodation. Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 329-355.
7. Camilli, G., & Shepard, L.A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8. Candell, G.L., & Drasgow, F. (1988). An iterative procedure for linking metrics and assessing item bias in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 253-260.
9. * Chan, K.S., Orlando, M., Ghosh-Dastidar, B., Duan, N., & Sherbourne, C.D. (2004). The interview mode effect on the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D) scale: An item response theory analysis. Medical Care, 42, 281-289.
10. * Cohen, A.S., Gregg, N., & Deng, M. (2005). The role of extended time and item content on a high-stakes mathematics test. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20, 225-233.
11. Cohen, A.S., Kim, S., & Wollack, J.A. (1996). An investigation of the likelihood ratio test for detection of differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 15-26.
12. * Cooke, D.J., & Michie, C. (1999). Psychopathology across cultures: North America and Scotland compared. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 58-68.
13. * Edelen, M.O., Thissen, D., Teresi, J.A., Kleinman, M., & Ocepek-Welikson, K. (2006). Identification of differential item functioning using item response theory and the likelihood-based model comparison approach. Medical Care, 44, S134 - S142.
14. Finch, H. (2005). The MIMIC model as a method for detecting DIF: Comparison with Mantel-Haenszel, SIBTEST, and the IRT likelihood ratio. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 278-295.
15. Haberman, S.J. (1977). Log-linear models and frequency tables with small expected cell counts. Annals of Statistics, 5, 1148-1169.
16. Holland, P.W., & Thayer, D.T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129-145). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (Eds.). (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18. * Huang, C.D., Church, A.T., & Katigbak, M.S. (1997). Identifying cultural differences in items and traits. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 192-218.
19. * Kim, M. (2001). Detecting DIF across the different language groups in a speaking test. Language Testing, 18, 89-114.
20. * Kim, S., & Cohen, A.S. (1995). A comparison of Lord's chi-square, Raju's area measures, and the likelihood ratio test on detection of differential item functioning. Applied Measurement in Education, 8, 291-312.
21. Kim, S., & Cohen, A.S. (1998). Detection of differential item functioning under the graded response model with the likelihood ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 345-355.
22. Kok, F.G., Mellenbergh, G.J., & van der Flier, H. (1985). Detecting experimentally induced item bias using the iterative logit method. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22, 295-303.
23. Lord, F.M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24. Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Cai, L. (2006). A cautionary note on using G2(dif) to assess relative model fit in categorical data analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, 55-64.
25. Meade, A.W., & Lautenschlager, G.J. (2004). A comparison of item response theory and confirmatory factor analytic methodologies for establishing measurement equivalence/invariance. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 361-388.
26. Mellenbergh, G.J. (1989). Item bias and item response theory. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 127-143.
27. 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.
28. Millsap, R.E., & Everson, H.T. (1993). Methodology review: Statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 297-334.
29. Navas-Ara, M.J., & Gómez-Benito, J. (2002). Effects of ability scale purification on the identification of DIF. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 9-15.
30. * Oishi, S. (2006). The concept of life satisfaction across cultures: An IRT analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 411-423.
31. * Orlando, M., & Marshall, G.N. (2002). Differential item functioning in a Spanish translation of the PTSD checklist: Detection and evaluation of impact. Psychological Assessment, 14, 50-59.
32. * Pae, T. (2004). DIF for examinees with different academic backgrounds. Language Testing, 21, 53-73.
33. Park, D., & Lautenschlager, G.J. (1990). Improving IRT item bias detection with iterative linking and ability scale purification. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 163-173.
34. * Reise, S.P., Widaman, K.F., & Pugh, R.H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 552-566.
35. Rensvold, R.B., & Cheung, G.W. (2001). Testing for metric invariance using structural equation models: Solving the standardization problem. In C. A. Schriesheim & L. L. Reider (Eds.), Equivalence in measurement: Research in management (pp. 25-50). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
36. * Rodebaugh, T.L., Woods, C.M., Heimberg, R.G., Liebowitz, M.R., & Schneier, F.R. (2006). The factor structure and screening utility of the social interaction anxiety scale. Psychological Assessment, 18, 231-237.
37. Samejima, F. (1997). Graded response model. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 85-100). New York: Springer.
38. Shealy, R., & Stout, W. (1993). A model-based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from group ability differences and detects test bias/DTF as well as item bias/DIF. Psychometrika, 58, 159-194.
39. Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O.S., & Drasgow, F. (2006). Detecting differential item functioning with confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Toward a unified strategy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1291-1306.
40. Steinberg, L. (1994). Context and serial-order effects in personality measurement: Limits on the generality of measuring changes the measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 341-349.
41. * Steinberg, L. (2001). The consequences of pairing questions: Context effects in personality measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 332-342.
42. Steinberg, L., & Thissen, D. (2006). Using effect sizes for research reporting: Examples using item response theory to analyze differential item functioning. Psychological Methods, 11, 402-415.
43. Thissen, D. (1991). MULTILOG user's guide: Multiple categorical item analysis and test scoring using item response theory [Computer software and manual]. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
44. Thissen, D. (2001). IRTLRDIF v2.0b: Software for the computation of the statistics involved in item response theory likelihood-ratio tests for differential item functioning. Documentation for computer program [Computer software and manual]. Chapel Hill: L. L. Thurstone Psychometric Laboratory, University of North Carolina.
45. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Gerrard, M. (1986). Beyond group-mean differences: The concept of item bias. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 118-128.
46. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Kuang, D. (2002). Quick and easy implementation of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure for controlling the false positive rate in multiple comparisons. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 27, 77-83.
47. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1988). Use of item response theory in the study of group difference in trace lines. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 147-169). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
48. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1993). Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 67-111). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49. Wainer, H. (1993). Model-based standardized measurement of an item's differential impact. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 123-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50. Wainer, H., Sireci, S.G., & Thissen, D. (1991). Differential testlet functioning: Definitions and detection. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 197-219.
51. Wang, W. (2004). Effects of anchor item methods on detection of differential item functioning within the family of Rasch models. Journal of Experimental Education, 72, 221-261.
52. Wang, W., & Yeh, Y. (2003). Effects of anchor item methods on differential item functioning detection with the likelihood ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 479-498.
53. * Williams, V.S.L. (1997). The ''unbiased'' anchor: Bridging the gap between DIF and item bias. Applied Measurement in Education, 10, 253-267.
54. Williams, V.S.L., Jones, L.V., & Tukey, J.W. (1999). Controlling error in multiple comparisons, with examples from state-to-state differences in educational achievement. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 42-69.