Conservativeness in rejection of the null hypothesis when using the continuity correction in the MH chi-square test in DIF applications

Applied Psychological Measurement

Volumn 34, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 539-548

  Paek, Insu ^a  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

continuity correction; differential item functioning; Mantel Haenszel statistic; Yates correction

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956329636     PISSN: 01466216     EISSN: 15523497     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0146621610378288     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Ackerman, T.A., & Evans, J.A. (1994). The influence of conditioning scores in performing DIF analyses. Aρρlied Psychological Measurement, 18, 329-342.
2. Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
3. 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. 397-479). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
4. Camilli, G., & Shepard, L.A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5. Clasuser, B.E., Mazor, K., & Hambleton, R.K. (1991). Influence of the criterion variable on the identification of differentially functioning test items using the Mantel-Haenszel statistic. Aρρlied Psychological Measurement, 15, 353-359.
6. Cochran, W.G. (1954). Some methods of strengthening the common χ2 tests. Biometrics, 10, 417-451.
7. Conover, W.J. (1974). Some reasons for not using the Yates continuity correction on 2 × 2 contingency tables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69, 374-376.
8. Donoghue, J.R., & Isham, S.P. (1998). A comparison of procedures to detect item parameter drift. Aρρlied Psychological Measurement, 22, 33-51.
9. Dorans, N., & Holland, P.W. (1993). DIF detection and description: Mantel-Haenszel and standardization. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 35-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Finch, H. (2005). The MIMIC model as a method for detecting DIF: Comparison with Mantel-Haenszel, SIBTEST, and the IRT likelihood ratio. Aρρlied Psychological Measurement, 29, 278-295.
11. Fuchs, C. (2001). UMPU and alternative tests for association in 2 × 2 tables. Biometrics, 57, 535-538.
12. Grizzle, J.E. (1967). Continuity correction in the χ2 test for 2 × 2 tables. The American Statistician, 21, 28-32.
13. Haber, M. (1982). The continuity correction and statistical testing. International Statistical Review, 50, 135-144.
14. Hauck, W. (1979). The large sample variance of the Mantel-Haenszel estimator of a common odds ratio. Biometrics, 35, 817-819.
15. Haviland, M.G. (1990). Yates's correction for continuity and the analysis of 2 × 2 contingency tables. Statistics in Medicine, 9, 363-367.
16. Holland, P.W., & 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: Erlbaum.
17. Longford, N.T., Holland, P.W., & Thayer, D.T. (1993). Stability of the MH D-DIF statistics across populations. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 171-196). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. Mantel, N., & Greenhouse, S.W. (1968). What is the continuity correction? The American Statistician, 22, 27-30.
19. Mantel, N., & Haenszel, W. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 719-748.
20. Narayanan, P., & Swaminathan, H. (1994). Performance of the Mantel-Haenszel and simultaneous item bias procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Aρρlied Psychological Measurement, 18, 315-328.
21. Narayanan, P., & Swaminathan, H. (1996). Identification of items that show nonuniform DIF. Aρρlied Psychological Measurement, 20, 257-274.
22. Overall, J.E. (1980). Continuity correction for Fisher's exact probability test. Journal of Educational Statistics, 5, 177-190.
23. Paek, I., & Guo, H. (2010). Statistical testing based on log transformation of the MH common odds ratio with applications to DIF.
24. Parshall, C.G., & Miller, T.R. (1995). Exact versus asymptotic Mantel-Haenszel DIF statistics: A comparison of performance under small-sample conditions. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 302-316.
25. Richardson, J.T.E. (1994). The analysis of 2 × 1 and 2 × 2 contingency tables: An historical review. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 3, 107-133.
26. Robins, J., Breslow, N.E., & Greenland, S. (1986). Estimators of the Mantel-Haenszel variance consistent in both sparse data and large strata limiting models. Biometrics, 42, 311-324.
27. Tocher, K.D. (1950). Extension of the Neyman-Pearson theory of tests to discontinuous variates. Biometrika, 37, 130-144.
28. Upton, G.J.G. (1982). A comparison of alternative tests for the 2 × 2 comparative trial. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 145, 86-105.
29. Upton, G.J.G. (2000). Conditional independence, the Mantel-Haenszel Test, and the Yates correction. The American Statistician, 54, 112-115.
30. Uttaro, T., & Milsap, R.E. (1994). Factors influencing the Mantel-Haenszel procedure the detection of differential item functioning. Aρρlied Psycholgoical Measurement, 18, 15-25.
31. Woods, C.M. (2009). Testing for differential item functioning with measures of partial association. Aρρlied Psychological Measurement, 33, 538-554.
32. Yates, F. (1934). Contingency tables involving small numbers and the χ2 test. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, Suρρlement, 1, 217-235.
33. Zwick, R. (1990). When do item response function and Mantel-Haenszel definitions of differential item functioning coincide? Journal of Educational Statistics, 15, 185-197.