The effects of referent item parameters on differential item functioning detection using the free baseline likelihood ratio test

Applied Psychological Measurement

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 251-265

  Lopez Rivas, Gabriel E ^a   Stark, Stephen ^a,b   Chernyshenko, Oleksandr S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^b NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

Author keywords

Anchor items; Differential item functioning; Item response theory; Likelihood ratio test; Measurement invariance

Indexed keywords

EID: 65649123021     PISSN: 01466216     EISSN: 15523497     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0146621608321760     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. American Psychological Association. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
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. 397-472). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3. Bolt, D.M. (2002). A Monte Carlo comparison of parametric and nonparametric polytomous DIF detection methods. Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 113-141.
4. Camilli, G., & Shepard, L.A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5. 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.
6. Chernyshenko, O.S., Stark, S., Chan, K.-Y., Drasgow, F., & Williams, B. (2001). Fitting item response models to two personality inventories: Issues and insights. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 523-562.
7. Cheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R.B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups: A reconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal of Management, 25, 1-27.
8. Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1989). The NEO-PI/NEO-FFI manual supplement. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
9. Drasgow, F., & Kang, T. (1984). Statistical power of differential validity and differential prediction analyses for detecting measurement nonequivalence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 498-508.
10. Finch, H. (2005). The MIMIC model as a method for detecting DIF: Comparison with Mantel-Haenszel, SIBTEST, and the IRT likelihood ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 278-295.
11. Harwell, M., Stone, C.A., Hsu, T.-C., & Kirisci, L. (1996). Monte Carlo studies in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 101-125.
12. Holland, P.W., & Wainer, H. (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Kim, S.-H., & 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 Psychological Measurement, 8, 291-312.
14. Lord, F.M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Ones, D.S., & Anderson, N. (2002). Gender and ethnic group differences on personality scales in selection: Some British data. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 255-276.
16. Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, 34, 100-114.
17. Singelis, T., & Triandis, H. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240-275.
18. Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M., & Hulin, C.L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Skokie IL: Rand McNally.
19. Sörbom, D. (1974). A general method for studying differences in factor means and factor structure between groups. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 27, 229-239.
20. Stark, S. (1999). SGRGEN: A computer program for polytomous data generation [Computer program]. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
21. Stark, S. (2000). 3PLGEN: A computer program for dichotomous data generation [Computer program]. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
22. Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O.S., & Drasgow F. (2004). Examining the effects of differential item functioning and differential test functioning on selection decisions: When are statistically significant effects practically important ? Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 497-508.
23. Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O.S., & Drasgow, F. (2006). Detecting differential item functioning with CFA and IRT: Toward a unified strategy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 19, 1292-1306.
24. Thissen, D. (1991). MULTILOG user's guide (Version 6) [Computer software]. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
25. 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. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 147-169). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Timbrook, R.E., & Graham, J.R. (1994). Ethnic differences on the MMPI-2 ? Psychological Assessment, 6, 212-217.
27. 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.
28. Wang, W.-C. (2004). Effects of anchor item methods on differential item functioning detection within the family of Rasch models. Journal of Experimental Education, 72, 221-261.