Differential Item Functioning in rehabilitation research

Work

Volumn 36, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 361-369

  Gitchel, Dent ^a   Turner, Ronna ^b   Rumrill, Phillip ^c  

^a WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS   (United States)

^c KENT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

depression; differential item functioning; disability; Measurement; NLSY; polytomous items; rehabilitation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; REHABILITATION; RESEARCH; STATISTICAL MODEL;

HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; REHABILITATION; RESEARCH;

EID: 77956306537     PISSN: 10519815     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3233/WOR-2010-1072     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. T.A. Ackerman, A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact, and item validity from a multidimensional perspective, Journal of Educational Measurement 29(1) (1992), 67-91.
2. J. Bellini and P. Rumrill, (2009). Research in Rehabilitation Counseling (2nd ed.), Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
3. D.M. Bolt and J. Rounds, Advances in psychometric theory and methods, in: Handbook of Counseling Psychology (3rd ed.), S.E. Brown and R.W. Lent, eds, Hoboken, NJ: JohnWiley and Sons, 2000, pp. 140-176.
4. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2009a). National longitudinal survey of youth 1979 cohort, 1979-2008 (rounds 1-23) [computer file]. Produced and distributed by the Center for Human Resource Research, The Ohio State University. Columbus, OH.
5. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, and National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. (2009b). Children of the NLSY79 [computer file]. Produced and distributed by the Center for Human Resource Research, The Ohio State University. Columbus, OH.
6. S.E. Bolt and J. Ysseldyke, Accomodating students with disabilities in large-scale testing: A comparison of differential item functioning (DIF) identified across disability types, Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 26 (2008), 121-138.
7. G. Camilli and L.A. Shepard, Methods for Identifying Biased Test Items (vol. 4). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994.
8. H.H. Chang, J. Mazzeo and L. Roussos, Detecting DIF for polytomously scored items: An adaptation of the SIBTEST procedure, Journal of Educational Measurement 33(3) (1996), 333-353.
9. N.J. Dorans and P.W. Holland, DIF detection and description: Mantel-Haenszel and standardization, in: Differential Item Functioning, P.W. Holland and H. Wainer, eds, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1993, pp. 35-66.
10. A.M. Gallagher, R. De Lisi, P.C. Holst, A.V. McGillicuddy-De Lisi, M. Morley and C. Calahan, Gender differences in advanced mathematical problem solving, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 75 (2000), 165-190.
11. M.J. Gierl, Using dimensionality-based DIF analyses to identify and interpret constructs that elicit group differences, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 24(1) (2005), 3-14.
12. M.J. Gierl, J. Bisanz, G.L. Bisanz and K.A. Boughton, Identifying content and cognitive skills that produce gender differences in mathematics: A demonstration of the multidimensionality-based DIF analysis paradigm, Journal of Educational Measurement 40(4) (2003), 281-306.
13. M.J. Gierl and S.N. Khalik, Identifying sources of differential item and bundle functioning on translated achievement tests: Aconfirmatory analysis, Journal of Educational Measurement 38(2), 164-187.
14. P.W. Holland and D.T. Thayer, Differential item functioning and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure, in: Test Validity, H. Wainer and H.I. Braun, eds, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988, pp. 129-145.
15. E. Klierne and J. Baurnert, Identifying national cultures of mathematics education: Analysis of cognitive demands and differential item functioning in TIMSS, European Journal of Psychology of Education 16(3) (2001), 385-402.
16. F.M. Lord, Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1980.
17. S. Mendes-Barnett and K. Ercikan, Examining sources of gender DIF in mathematics assessments using a confirmatory multidimensional model approach, Applied Measurement in Education 19(4) (2006), 289-304.
18. L.S. Radloff, The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population, Applied Psychological Measurement 1(3) (1977), 385-401.
19. C.A. Reid, S.A. Kolakowsky-Hayner, A.N. Lewis and A.J. Armstrong, Modern psychometric methodology: Applications of item response theory, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 50(3) (2007), 177-188.
20. K.E. Ryan and S. Chiu, Anexamination of item context effects, DIF, and gender DIF, Applied Measurement in Education 14(1) (2001), 73-90.
21. A.P. Schmitt and N.J. Dorans, Differential item functioning for minority examinees on the SAT, Journal of Educational Measurement 27 (1990), 67-81.
22. R. Shealy and W. Stout, 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(2) (1993), 159-194.
23. L.A. Shepard, G. Camilli and D.M. Williams, Accounting for statistical artifacts in item bias research, Journal of Educational Statistics 9 (1984), 93-128.
24. E.H. Simpson, The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Ser. B 13 (1951), 238-241.
25. L.L. Smith, On the usefulness of item bias analysis to personality psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28 (2009), 754-763.
26. N.T. Van Dam, M. Earleywine and J.P. Forsyth, Gender bias in the sixteen-item Anxiety Sensitivity Index: An application of polytomous differential item functioning, Journal of Anxiety Disorders 23(2) (2009), 256-259.
27. E.L. Young and R.R. Sudweeks, 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 (2005), 29-44.
28. B.D. Zumbo, (1999). A Handbook on the Theory and Methods of Differential Item Functioning (DIF): Logistic Regression Modeling as a Unitary Framework for Binary and Likert-Type (Ordinal) Item Scores. Ottawa, ON: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.
29. B.D. Zumbo, Three generations of DIF analysis: Considering where it has been, where it is now, and where it is going, Language Assessment Quarterly 4(2) (2007), 2223-233.