Differential item functioning detection using the multiple indicators, multiple causes method with a pure short anchor

Applied Psychological Measurement

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 184-199

  Shih, Ching Lin ^a   Wang, Wen Chung ^b  

^a NATIONAL TAICHUNG UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION   (Taiwan)

^b THE EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

Differential item functioning; Item response theory; Matching variable; MIMIC; Rasch model

Indexed keywords

EID: 65249135468     PISSN: 01466216     EISSN: 15523497     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0146621608321758     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Ackerman, T.A. (1992). A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact, and item validity from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 67-91.
2. Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability. In F. M. Lord & M. R. Novick (Eds.), Statistical theories of mental test scores (pp. 397-424). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3. Camilli, G. (1993). The case against item bias techniques based on internal criteria: Do item bias procedures obscure test fairness issues? The use of differential item functioning statistics: A discussion of current practice and future implications. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 397-413). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. 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.
5. Clauser, B., Mazor, K., & Hambleton, R.K. (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. (Pubitemid 24768902)
6. Cohen, A.S., Kim, S. - H., & Wollack, J.A. (1996). An investigation of the likelihood ratio test for detection of differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 15-26. (Pubitemid 126328990)
7. Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
8. Dodeen, H., & Johanson, G. (2003). An analysis of sex-related differential item functioning in attitude assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 129-134. (Pubitemid 36209402)
9. Dorans, N.J., & 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.
10. 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. (Pubitemid 40977515)
11. Fleishman, J.A., Spector, W.D., & Altman, B.M. (2002). Impact of differential item functioning on age and gender differences in functional disability. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 57B (5). S275 - S283.
12. French, B.F., & Maller, S.J. (2007). Iterative purification and effect size use with logistic regression for differential item functioning detection. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 373-393.
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: Psychological Sciences, 49, 251-264. (Pubitemid 24354680)
14. Glöckner-Rist, A., & Hoitjink, H. (2003). The best of both worlds: Factor analysis of dichotomous data using item response theory and structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 544-565.
15. Hidalgo-Montesinos, M.D., & Gómez-Benito, J. (2003). Test purification and the evaluation of differential item functioning with multinomial logistic regression. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19, 1-11. (Pubitemid 36357357)
16. Holland, W.P., & 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. Huang, C.D., Church, A.T., & Katigbak, M.S. (1997). Identifying cultural differences in items and traits: Differential item functioning in the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 192-218. (Pubitemid 127035107)
18. Lautenschlager, G.J., Flaherty, V.L., & Park, D. (1994). IRT differential item functioning: An examination of ability scale purifications. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 21-31. (Pubitemid 24816508)
19. Levine, D.W., Bowen, D.J., Kaplan, R.M., Kripke, D.F., Naughton, M.J., & Shumaker, S.A. (2003). Factor structure and measurement invariance of the Women's Health Initiative Insomnia Rating Scale. Psychological Assessment, 15, 123-136. (Pubitemid 36750521)
20. Linacre, M.J. (2003). Winsteps Rasch measurement software [computer software]. Chicago: WINSTEPS.
21. Lord, F.M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. MacIntosh, R., & Hashim, S. (2003). Variance estimation for converting MIMIC model parameters to IRT parameters in DIF analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 372-379. (Pubitemid 37095305)
23. McDonald, R.P. (1967). Nonlinear factor analysis. Psychometrika Monographs, 15, 1-167.
24. 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.
25. Muthén, B.O. (1985). A method for studying the homogeneity of test items with respect to other relevant variables. Journal of Educational Statistics, 10, 121-132.
26. Muthén, B.O. (1988). Some uses of structural equation modeling in validity studies: Extending IRT to external variables. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 213-238). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27. Muthén, B.O., Kao, C.F., & Burstein, L. (1991). Instructionally sensitive psychometrics: Application of a new IRT-based detection technique to mathematics achievement test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 1-22.
28. Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (2004). Mplus user's guide. Los Angeles: Author.
29. Navas-Ara, M.J., & Gómez-Benito, J. (2002). Effects of ability scale purification on identification of DIF. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 9-15.
30. Oort, F.J. (1998). Simulation study of item bias detection with restricted factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 5, 107-124.
31. Park, D.G., & Lautenschlager, G.J. (1990). Improving IRT item bias detection with iterative linking and ability scale purification. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 163-173.
32. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danmarks Paedogogische Institut.
33. Shealy, R.T., & Stout, W.F. (1993). A model-biased 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.
34. Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H.J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 361-370.
35. Takane, Y., & de Leeuw, J. (1987). On the relationship between item response theory and factor analysis of discretized variables. Psychometrika, 52, 393-408.
36. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1988). Use of item response theory in the study of group differences in trace lines. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 147-169). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37. Wainer, H., Sireci, S., & Thissen, D. (1991). Differential testlet functioning: Definitions and detection. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 197-219. (Pubitemid 21678918)
38. Wang, W. - C. (2004). Effects of anchor item methods on the detection of differential item functioning within the family of Rasch models. Journal of Experimental Education, 72, 221-261. (Pubitemid 38614853)
39. Wang, W.-C., Shih, C.L., & Yang, C.-C. (in press). The MIMIC method with scale purification procedure for detecting differential item functioning. Educational and Psychological Measurement.
40. Wang, W.-C., Shih, C.-L., & Su, Y.-H. (2007). Establishing a common metric over groups for the assessment of differential item functioning. Submitted for publication.
41. Wang, W.-C., & Su, Y.-H. (2004 a). Effects of average signed area between two item characteristic curves and test purification procedures on the DIF detection via the Mantel-Haenszel method. Applied Measurement in Education, 17, 113-144. (Pubitemid 38846325)
42. Wang, W.-C., & Su, Y.-H. (2004 b). Factors influencing the Mantel and generalized Mantel-Haenszel methods for the assessment of differential item functioning in polytomous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28, 450-480. (Pubitemid 39499102)
43. Wang, W.-C., & Wilson, M.R. (2005). Assessment of differential item functioning in testlet-based items using the Rasch testlet model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 549-576. (Pubitemid 41111845)
44. Wang, W.-C., & Yeh, Y.-L. (2003). Effects of anchor item methods on differential item functioning detection with the likelihood ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 479-498. (Pubitemid 37514205)
45. Welch, C.J., & Miller, T.R. (1995). Assessing differential item functioning in direct writing assessments: Problems and an example. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 163-178. (Pubitemid 126093659)
46. Wright, B.D., & Stone, M.H. (1979). Best test design. Chicago: MESA Press.
47. Young, E.L., & Sudweeks, R.R. (2005). Gender differential item functioning in the Multidimensional Self Concept Scale with a sample of early adolescent students. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 38, 29-44. (Pubitemid 40622639)