Measurement of teen dating violence attitudes: An item response theory evaluation of differential item functioning according to gender

Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Volumn 24, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 1243-1263

  Edelen, Maria Orlando ^a   McCaffrey, Daniel F ^a   Marshall, Grant N ^a   Jaycox, Lisa H ^a  

^a RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; Dating violence; Domestic violence; Domestic violence intervention treatment

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; AGGRESSION; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CHILD PSYCHOLOGY; COURTSHIP; ETHNOLOGY; FEMALE; HISPANIC; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; INSTRUMENTATION; MALE; PARTNER VIOLENCE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOMETRY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REPRODUCIBILITY; SEX RATIO; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS; STUDENT; UNITED STATES;

ADOLESCENT; ADOLESCENT PSYCHOLOGY; AGGRESSION; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COURTSHIP; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HISPANIC AMERICANS; HUMANS; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; LOS ANGELES; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PSYCHOMETRICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROC CURVE; SEX DISTRIBUTION; SPOUSE ABUSE; STUDENTS;

EID: 69149091720     PISSN: 08862605     EISSN: 15526518     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0886260508322187     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Avery-Leaf, S., Cascardi, M., O'Leary, K. D., & Cano, A. (1997). Efficacy of a dating violence prevention program on attitudes justifying aggression. Journal of Adolescent Health, 21, 11-17.
2. Baker, F. B., Al-Karni, A., & Al-Dosary, I. M. (1991). EQUATE: A computer program for the test characteristic method of IRT equating. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15, 78.
3. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5. 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.
6. Budgell, G. R., Raju, N. S., & Quartetti, D. A. (1995). Analysis of differential item functioning in translated assessment instruments. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 309-321.
7. Cauffman, E., & MacIntosh, R. (2006). A Rasch differential item functioning analysis of the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument: Identifying race and gender differential item functioning among juvenile offenders. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 502-521.
8. Edelen, M. O., Thissen, D., Teresi, T., Kleinman, M., & Ocepek-Weliikson, K. (2006). Identification of differential item functioning using item response theory and the likelihood-based model comparison approach. Medical Care, 44(SUPPL. 3), 1-9.
9. Embretson, S. E. (1996). The new rules of measurement. Psychological Assessment, 8, 341-349.
10. Fletcher, R., & Hattie, J. (2005). Gender differences in physical self-concept: A multidimensional differential item functioning analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 657-667.
11. Foshee, V. A. (1996). Gender differences in adolescent dating abuse prevalence, types and injuries. Health Education Research, 11, 275-286.
12. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Arriaga, X. B., Helms, R. W., Koch, G. G., & Linder, G. F. (1998). An evaluation of safe dates, an adolescent dating violence prevention program. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 45-50.
13. Foshee, V. A., Linder, G. F., Bauman, K. E., Langwick, S. A., Arriaga, X. B., Heath, J. L., et al. (1996). The safe dates project: Theoretical basis, evaluation design, and selected baseline findings. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12(5 Suppl.), 39-47.
14. Garbarino, J., Schellenback, C. J., & Sebes, J. (1986). Troubled youth, troubled families. New York: Adine de Gruyter.
15. Gelin, M. N., & Zumbo, B. D. (2003). Differential item functioning results may change depending on how an item is scored: An illustration with the center for epidemiologic studies depression scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 65-74.
16. Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
17. Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18. Huesmann, L. R., & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children's normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 408-419.
19. Hulin, C. L., Drasgow, F., & Parsons, C. K. (1983). Item response theory: Application to psychological measurement. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
20. Jaycox, L. H., McCaffrey, D., Eiseman, E., Aronoff, J., Shelley, G. A., Collins, R. L., et al. (2006). Impact of a school-based dating violence prevention program among Latino teens: A randomized controlled effectiveness trial. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39, 694-704.
21. Lavoie, F., Vezina, L., Piche, C., & Boivin, M. (1995). Evaluation of a prevention program for violence in teen dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 516-524.
22. Malik, S., Sorenson, S. B., & Aneshensel, C. S. (1997). Community and dating violence among adolescents: Perpetration and victimization. Journal of Adolescent Health, 21, 291-302.
23. Mendes-Barnett, S., & Ercikan, K. (2006). Examining sources of gender DIF in mathematics assessments using a confirmatory multidimensional model approach. Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 289-304.
24. Michie, C., & Cooke, D. J. (2006). The structure of violent behavior: A hierarchical model. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 706-737.
25. Orlando, M., Jaycox, L. H., McCaffrey, D. M., & Marshall, G. N. (2006). Improving the measurement of socially unacceptable attitudes and behaviors with item response theory (Working Paper No. WR-383). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
26. Price, E. L., & Byers, E. S. (1999). The attitudes towards dating violence scales: Development and initial validation. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 351-375.
27. Raju, N. S., van der Linden, W. J., & Fleer, P. F. (1995). IRT-based internal measures of differential functioning of items and tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 353-368.
28. Ramsay, J. O. (1993). TESTGRAF: A program for the graphical analysis of multiple choice test and questionnaire data (User's manual). Montreal, Quebec, Canada: McGill University.
29. Rayburn, N. R., Jaycox, L. H., McCaffrey, D. F., Ulloa, E. C., Zander-Cotugno, M., Marshall, G. N., et al. (2007). Reactions to dating violence among Latino teenagers. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 893-915. Retrieved July 3, 2008, from http://www.rand.org/health/feature/2007/070124_rayburn.html
30. Regan, K. V., Bartholomew, K., Oram, D., & Landolt, M. A. (2002). Measuring physical violence in male same-sex relationships: An item response theory analysis of the Conflict Tactics Scales. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 235-252.
31. 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.
32. 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-Verlag.
33. Schafer, J. (1996). Measuring spousal violence with the Conflict Tactics Scale: Notes on reliability and validity issues. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 572-585.
34. Takane, Y., & de Leeuw, J. (1987). On the relationship between item response theory and factor analysis of discretized variables. Psychometrika, 52, 393-408.
35. Thissen, D. (1991). Multilog user's guide: Multiples, categorical item analysis and test scoring using item response theory. Chicago: Scientific Software.
36. Thissen, D. (2001). IRTLRDIF v.2.0b: Software for the computation of the statistics involved in item response theory likelihood-ratio tests for differential item functioning. Chapel Hill: LL Thurstone Psychometric Laboratory, University of North Carolina.
37. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence. Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
38. Tontodonato, P., & Crew, B. K. (1992). Dating violence, social learning theory, and gender: A multivariate analysis. Violence and Victims, 7, 3-14.
39. Ulloa, E. C., Jaycox, L. H., Marshall, G. N., & Collins, R. L. (2004). Acculturation, gender stereotypes, and attitudes about dating violence among Latino youth. Violence and Victims, 19, 273-287.
40. Wekerle, C., & Wolfe, D. A. (1999). Dating violence in mid-adolescence: Theory, significance, and emerging prevention initiatives. Clinical Psychology Review, 19, 435-456.
41. Whitaker, D. J., Morrison, S., Lindquist, C., Hawkins, S. R., O'Neil, J. A., Nesius, A. M., et al. (2006). A critical review of interventions for the primary prevention of perpetration of partner violence. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 11, 151-166.