Type i error inflation for detecting dif in the presence of impact

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 70, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 961-972

  DeMars, Christine E ^a  

^a JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

DIF; logistic regression; Type I error

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650430278     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: 15523888     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013164410366691     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bolt, D., & Gierl, M.J. (2006). Testing features of graphical DIF: Application of a regression correction to three nonparametric statistical tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43, 313-333.
2. Chang, H.-H., Mazzeo, J., & Roussos, L. (1996). Detecting DIF for polytomously scored items: An adaptation of the SIBTEST procedure. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 333-353.
3. Finch, W.H., & French, B.F. (2007). Detection of crossing differential item functioning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 565-582.
4. Finch, W.H., & French, B.F. (2008). Anomalous Type I error rates for identifying one type of differential item functioning in the presence of the other. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 742-759.
5. 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: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. Jiang, H., & Stout, W. (1998). Improved Type I error control and reduced estimation bias for DIF detection using SIBTEST. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 23, 291-322.
7. Li, H.-H., & Stout, W. (1996). A new procedure for detection of crossing DIF. Psychometrika, 61, 647-677.
8. Lord, F.M., & Wingersky, M.S. (1984). Comparison of IRT true-score and equipercentile observed score equatings. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 453-461.
9. Meredith, W., & Millsap, R.E. (1992). On the misuse of manifest variables in the detection of measurement bias. Psychometrika, 57, 289-311.
10. Oshima, T.C., Raju, N.S., & Nanda, A.O. (2006). A new method for assessing the statistical significance in the differential functioning of items and tests (DFIT) framework. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43, 1-17.
11. 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.
12. Roussos, L.A., & Stout, W.F. (1996). 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.
13. Shealy, R., & Stout, W. (1993). 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, 159-194.
14. Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H.J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 361-370.
15. Thissen, D., & Orlando, M. (2001). Item response theory for items scored in two categories. In D. Thissen & H. Wainer (Eds.), Test scoring (pp. 73-140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16. Wainer, H., & Skorupski, W.P. (2005). Was it ethnic and social-class bias or statistical artifact? Logical and empirical evidence against Freedle's method for reestimating SAT scores. Chance, 18, 17-24.
17. Wells, C.S., & Bolt, D.M. (2008). Investigation of a nonparametric procedure for assessing goodness-of-fit in item response theory. Applied Measurement in Education, 21, 22-40.
18. Yen, W.M. (1981). Using simulation results to choose a latent trait model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 5, 245-262.
19. Zwick, R. (1990). When do item response function and Mantel-Haenszel definitions of differential item functioning coincide? Journal of Educational Statistics, 15, 185-197.