The impact of multidimensionality on the detection of differential bundle functioning using Simultaneous Item Bias Test

Applied Psychological Measurement

Volumn 33, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 441-464

  Furlow, Carolyn F ^a   Ross, Terris Raiford ^a   Gagné, Phill ^a  

^a GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Differential bundle functioning; Differential item functioning; Multidimensionality

Indexed keywords

EID: 70249089413     PISSN: 01466216     EISSN: 15523497     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0146621609331959     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Ackerman, T. A. (1989). Unidimensional IRT calibration of compensatory and noncompensatory multidimensional items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 113-127.
2. 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.
3. Ansley, T. N., & Forsyth, R. A. (1985). An examination of the characteristics of unidimensional IRT parameter estimates derived from two-dimensional data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 37-48.
4. Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). A taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook 1: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
5. Boughton, K., Gierl, M. J., & Khaliq, S. N. (2000, May). Differential bundle functioning on mathematics and science achievement tests: A small step toward understanding differential performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
6. Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7. Douglas, J. A., Roussos, L. A., & Stout, W. (1996). Item-bundle DIF hypothesis testing: Identifying suspect bundles and assessing their differential functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 465-484.
8. Drasgow, F., & Parsons, C. K. (1983). Application of unidimensional item response theory models to multidimensional data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 189-199.
9. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. Engelhard, G., Hansche, L., & Rutledge, K. E. (1990). Accuracy of bias review judges in identifying differential item functioning on teacher certification tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 3, 347-360.
11. Gallagher, A. M., De Lisi, R., Holst, P. C., McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A. V., Morley, M., & Cahalan, C. (2000). Gender differences in advanced mathematical problem-solving. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 75, 165-190.
12. Gierl, M. J. (1997). Comparing cognitive representations of test developers and students on a mathematical test with Bloom's taxonomy. Journal of Educational Research, 91(1), 26-32.
13. Gierl, M. J., Bisanz, J., Bisanz, G. L., Boughton, K. A., & Khaliq, S. N. (2001). Illustrating the utility of differential bundle functioning analysis to identify and interpret group differences on achievement tests. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20, 26-36.
14. Gierl, M. J., & Bolt, D. (2003, April). Implications of the multidimensionality-based DIF analysis framework for selecting a matching and studied subtest. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL.
15. Gierl, M. J., & Khaliq, S. N. (2001). Identifying sources of differential item and bundle functioning on translated achievement tests: A confirmatory analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 164-187.
16. Gierl, M. J., Rogers, W. T., & Klinger, D. (1999, April). Consistency between statistical procedures and content reviews for identifying translation DIF. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
17. Gierl, M. J., Tan, X., & Wang, C. (2005). Identifying content and cognitive dimensions on the SAT (No. 2005-11). New York: College Board.
18. Harrison, D. A. (1986). Robustness of IRT parameter estimation to violations of the unidimensionality assumption. Journal of Educational Statistics, 11, 91-115.
19. Kirisci, L., Hsu, T., & Yu, L. (2001). Robustness of item parameter estimation programs to assumptions of unidimensionality and normality. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 146-162.
20. Kromrey, J. D., Parshall, C. G., Chason, W. M., & Yi, Q. (1999). Generating item responses based on multidimensional item response theory. Retrieved July 25, 2005, from http://www.2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi24/Posters/p241-24.pdf
21. Lee, Y. (2005). The impact of a multidimensional item on differential item functioning (DIF). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65 (7A), 2490. (UMI No. 3139494).
22. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23. Nandakumar, R. (1991). Traditional versus essential unidimensionality. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 99-117.
24. Nandakumar, R. (1993). Simultaneous DIF amplification and cancellation: Shealy-Stout's test for DIF. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 293-311.
25. Narayanan, P., & Swaminathan, H. (1994). Performance of the Mantel-Haenszel and simultaneous item bias procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 315-328.
26. O'Neill, K. A., & McPeek, W. M. (1993). Item and test characteristics that are associated with differential item functioning. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 255-276). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27. Oshima, T. C., & Miller, M. D. (1992). Multidimensionality and item bias in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 237-248.
28. Oshima, T. C., Raju, N. S., Flowers, C. P., & Slinde, J. A. (1998). Differential bundle functioning using the DFIT framework: Procedures for identifying possible sources of differential functioning. Applied Measurement in Education, 11, 353-369
29. 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.
30. Reckase, M. D. (1979). Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: Results and implications. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4, 207-230.
31. Reckase, M. D. (1985). The difficulty of items that measure more than one ability. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 401-412.
32. Reckase, M. D., Ackerman, T. A., & Carlson, J. E. (1988). Building a unidimensional test using multidimensional items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 215, 193-203.
33. Reckase, M. D., & McKinley, R. L. (1991). The discriminating power of items that measure more than one dimension. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15, 361-373.
34. Roussos, L. A., & Stout, W. F. (1996a). A multidimensionality-based DIF analysis paradigm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 355-371.
35. Roussos, L. A., & Stout, W. F. (1996b). Simulation studies of the effects of small sample size and studied item parameters on SIBTEST and Mantel-Haenszel Type I error performance. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 215-230.
36. Russell, S. S. (2005). Estimates of Type I error and power for indices of differential bundle and test functioning. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66 (5B), 2867. (UMI No. 3175804)
37. Shealy, R., & Stout, W. F. (1993a). A model-based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from group differences and detects test bias/DIF as well as item bias/DIF. Psychometrika, 58, 159-194.
38. Shealy, R., & Stout, W. F. (1993b). An item response theory model for test bias and differential test functioning. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 197-239). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39. Standards for educational and psychological testing. (1999). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education.
40. Stout, W. F. (1987). A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 52, 589-617.
41. Stout, W. F. (1990). A new item response theory modeling approach with applications to unidimensional assessment and ability estimation. Psychometrika, 55, 293-326.
42. Sudweeks, R. R., & Tolman, R. R. (1993). Empirical versus subjective procedures for identifying gender differences in science test items. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 3-19.
43. Whitaker, T. A., Fitzpatrick, S. J., Williams, N. J., & Dodd, B. G. (2003). IRTGEN: A SAS macro program to generate known trait scores and item responses for commonly used item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 299-300.