Ethnic DIF in reading tests with mixed item formats

Educational Assessment

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 35-68

  Taylor, Catherine S ^a   Lee, Yoonsun ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b Seoul Women University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952407246     PISSN: 10627197     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2011.552039     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Abedi, J., Leon, S., & Mirocha, J. (2003). Impact of student language background on content-based performance: Analysis of extant data (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 603). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
2. Abedi, J., Hofstetter, C., Baker, E., & Lord, C. (2001). NAEP math performance and test accommodations: Interactions with student language (CSE Technical Report). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Testing, UCLA.
3. Abedi, J., & Lord, C. (2001). The language factor in mathematics tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 219-234.
4. Ackerman, T. (1992). A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact, and item validity from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29(1), 67-91.
5. Ackerman, T. (1994). Using multidimensional item response theory to understand what items and tests are measuring. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 255-278.
6. Ackerman, T. (1996). Graphical representation of multidimensional item response theory analyses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 311-329.
7. Ackerman, T., & Evans, J. A. (1992, April). An investigation of the relationship between reliability, power, and Type I error rate of the Mantel-Haenszel and simultaneous item bias detection procedures. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.
8. Bennett, R. E., Rock, D. A., & Wang M. (1991). Free-response and multiple-choice items: Measures of the same ability? Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
9. Bolt, D. M. (2000). A SIBTEST approach to testing DIF hypotheses using experimentally designed test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37, 307-327.
10. Bolt, D. M. (2002). A Monte Carlo comparison of parametric and nonparametric polytomous DIF detection methods. Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 113-141.
11. Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. Carlton, S. T., & Harris, A. M. (1992). Characteristics associated with differential item functioning on the Scholastic Aptitude Test: Gender and majority/minority group comparisons (ETS Research Rep. No. 92-64). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
13. Chang, 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.
14. Clauser, B. E., & Mazor, K. M. (1998). Using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning test items.
15. An NCME instructional module. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 31-44.
16. DeMars, C. E. (2000). Test stakes and item format interactions. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 55-77.
17. Douglas, J. A., Roussos, L., & Stout, W. (1996). Item-bundle DIF hypothesis testing: Identifying suspect bundles and assessing their differential functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 465-484.
18. Engelhard, G. (1990). Accuracy of bias review judges in identifying differential item functioning on teacher certification tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 3, 347-360.
19. Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1987). Semantic and structural factors affecting the item performance of matched black and white examinees on analogies items from the Scholastic Aptitude Test: Final research report. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
20. Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1988). Relationship between item characteristics and an index of differential item functioning (DIF) for the four GRE verbal item types: Report no. 85-3 p. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
21. Gafni, N. (1990, April). Differential item functioning: Performance by sex on reading comprehension tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academic Committee for Research on Language Testing, Kiryat Anavim, Israel.
22. Garner, M., & Engelhard, G. (1999). Gender differences in performance on multiple-choice and constructed response mathematics items. Applied Measurement in Education, 12, 29-51.
23. Hancock, G. R. (1994). Cognitive complexity and the comparability of multiple-choice and constructed-response test formats. Journal of Experimental Education, 62, 143-157.
24. Henderson, D. (2001, April). Prevalence of gender DIF in Mixed format high school exit examinations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
25. Jiang, H., & Stout, W. (1998). Improved type I error control and reduced estimation bias for DIF detection using SIBTEST. Journal of Educational and Behavioural Statistics, 23, 291-322.
26. Kulik, E., & Hu, P. G. (1989). Examining the relationship between differential item functioning and item difficulty. (College Board Report No. 89-5). New York, NY: College Board.
27. Lawrence, I. M. (1995). DIF data on free-responseSAT I mathematical items (ETS Rep. No. ETS-RR-95-22). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
28. Lawrence, I. M., Curley, W. E. (1989). Differential item functioning for males and females on SAT-Verbal Reading subscore items: Follow-up study (Research Rep. No. 89-22). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
29. Lawrence, I. M., Curley, W. E., & McHale, F. J. (1988). Differential item functioning for males and females on the SAT verbal subtests (Research Rep. No. 88-4). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
30. Linacre, J. M., & Wright, B. D. (1989). Mantel-Haenszel DIF and PROX are equivalent. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 3(2), 52-53.
31. Linn, R. L., & Harnish, D. L. (1981). Interactions between item content and group membership on achievement test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 18, 109-118.
32. Masor, K. M., Clauser, B. E., & Hambleton, R. K. (1994). Identification of nonuniform differential item functioning using a variation of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 284-291.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. Noble, A. C. (1992, April). Differential item functioning in innovative-format mathematics items. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
36. Rogers, J., & Swaminathan, H. (1993). A comparison of the logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 105-116.
37. Rooney, A. (1991). A few minutes with Andy Rooney. New York, NY: Scribner.
38. Rosenblatt, L. (1976). Literature as exploration (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Noble and Noble.
39. Roussos, L. A., Schnipke, D. L., & Pashley, P. J. (1999). A generalized formula for the Mantel-Haenszel differential item functioning parameter. Journal of Behavioral Statistics, 24, 293-322.
40. Roussos, L. A., & Stout, W. F. (1996). Simulation studies of the effects of sample size on SIBTEST and MantelHaenszel type I error performance. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 215-230.
41. 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.
42. Speigel, D. L. (1998). Reader response approaches and the growth of readers. Language Arts, 76, 41-48.
43. Stoneberg, B. D. (2004). A study of gender-based and ethnic-based differential item functioning (DIF) in the spring 2003 Idaho Standards Achievement Tests applying the simultaneous bias test (SIBTEST) and the Mantel-Haenszel chi square test. Boise: Idaho Department of Education.
44. Su, Y. H., & Wang, W. C. (2005). Efficiency of the Mantel, generalized Mantel-Haenszel, and logistic discriminant function analysis methods in detecting differential item functioning for polytomous items. Applied Measurement in Education, 18, 313-350.
45. Taylor, C. S. (1999a). Washington Assessment of Student Learning, Technical report for 1998, grade 4. Olympia, WA: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
46. Taylor, C. S. (1999b). Washington Assessment of Student Learning: Technical report for 1998, grade 7. Olympia, WA: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
47. Taylor, C. S. (1999c). Washington Assessment of Student Learning: Technical report for 1998, grade 10. Olympia, WA: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
48. Taylor, C. S., & Lee, Y. (in press). Gender DIF in reading and mathematics tests with mixed item formats. Applied Measurement in Education.
49. Thissen, D., Wainer, H., & Wang, X-B. (1994). Are tests comprising both multiple-choice and free-response items necessarily less unidimensional than multiple-choice tests? An analysis of two tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31, 113-123.
50. Walker, C. M., & Beretvas, S. N. (2000, April). Using multidimensional versus unidimensional ability estimates to determine student proficiency in mathematics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
51. Zenisky, A. L., Hambleton, R. K., & Robin, F. (2004). DIF detection and interpretation in large-scale science assessments: Informing item writing practices. Educational Assessment, 9(1-2), 61-78.
52. Zumbo, B. D. (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, Canada: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.
53. Zwick, R., & Ercikan, K. (1988). Analysis of differential item functioning in the NAEP History Assessment (ETS Research Rep. No. ETS-RR-88-66). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.