Formulating the Rasch differential item functioning model under the marginal maximum likelihood estimation context and its comparison with Mantel-Haenszel procedure in short test and small sample conditions

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 71, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 1023-1046

  Paek, Insu ^a   Wilson, Mark ^b  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

DIF; Mantel Haenszel test; Rasch DIF classifications; Rasch model

Indexed keywords

EID: 82355170065     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: 15523888     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013164411400734     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Adams R. J.,Wilson M.,Wang W. C.The multidimensional random coefficients multinomial logit model.Applied Psychological Measurement. 1997;21:1-23.
2. Adams R. J.,Wilson M.,Wu M.Multilevel item response models: An approach to errors in variables regression.Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 1997;22:47-76.
3. Birnbaum A. Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability, Statistical theories of mental test scores. Lord F. M.Novick M. R., ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1968:397-479.
4. Bohrer R.Multiple three-decision rules for parametric signs.Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1974;74:432-437.
5. Bryk A. S.,Raudenbush S. W.,Congdon R. T.HLM: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling with the HLM/2L and HLM/3L programs. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software; 1996:.
6. Camilli G.,Shepard L. A.Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994:.
7. Davidian M.,Giltinan D. M.Nonlinear models for repeated measurement data. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 1998:.
8. De Boeck P.,Wilson M.Explanatory item response models: A generalized linear and nonlinear approach. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2004:.
9. Donoghue J. R.,Holland P. W.,Thayer D. T. A Monte Carlo study of factors that affect the Mantel-Haenszel and standardization measures of differential item functioning,. Differential item functioning. Holland P. W.Wainer H., ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1993:137-166.
10. Dorans N. J.,Holland P. W. DIF detection and description: Mantel-Haenszel and Standardization,. Differential item functioning. Holland P. W.Wainer H., ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1993:35-66.
11. Fidalgo A. M.,Ferreres D.,Muniz J.Utility of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure for detecting differential item functioning in small samples.Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2004;64:925-936.
12. Fischer G. H.The linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research.Acta Psychologica. 1973;37:357-374.
13. Fischer G. H.Logistic latent trait models with linear constraints.Psychometrika. 1983;48:3-26.
14. Glas C. A. W.Detection of differential item functioning using Lagrange multiplier tests.Statistica Sinica. 1998;8:647-667.
15. Hanson B. A.Uniform DIF and DIF defined by differences in item response functions.Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 1998;3:244-253.
16. Harris R. J. Reforming significance testing via three-valued logic, What if there were no significance tests?. Harlow L. L.Mulaik S. A.Steiger J. H., ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1997:145-174.
17. Holland P. W.,Thayer D. T. Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure,. Test validity. Wainer H.Braun H. I., ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988:129-145.
18. Holland P. W.,Wainer H. Stability of the MH D-DIF statistics across populations,. Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1993:.
19. Kaiser H. F.Directional statistical decisions.Psychological Review. 1960;67:160-167.
20. Kamata A.Item analysis by the hierarchical generalized linear model.Journal of Educational Measurement. 2001;38:79-93.
21. Linacre J. M.,Wright B. D.Item bias: Mantel-Haenszel and the Rasch model. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1987:.
22. Linacre J. M.,Wright B. D.Mantel-Haenszel DIF and PROX are equivalent!.Rasch Measurement Transactions. 1989;3 (2): 52-53.
23. Longford N. T.,Holland P. W.,Thayer D. T.Differential item functioning. Holland P. W.Wainer H., ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1993:171-196.
24. Lord F. M. A study of item bias, using item characteristic curve theory,. Basic problems in cross-cultural psychology. Poortinga Y. H., ed. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Swets & Zitlinger; 1977:19-29.
25. Lord F. M.Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1980:.
26. Mantel N.,Haenszel W.Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease.Journal of National Cancer Institution. 1959;22:719-768.
27. Mapuranga R.,Dorans N. J.,Middleton K.A review of recent developments in differential item functioning. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 2008:.
28. Mazor K. M.,Clauser B. E.,Hambleton R. K.The effect of sample size on the functioning of the Mantel-Haenszel statistic.Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1992;52:443-452.
29. Mellenbergh G. J.Contingency table methods for assessing item bias.Journal of Educational Statistics. 1982;7:105-118.
30. Meredith W.,Millsap R. E.On the misuse of manifest variables in the detection of measurement bias.Psychometrika. 1992;57:289-311.
31. Millsap R.,Everson H.Methodology review: Statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias.Applied Psychological Measurement. 1993;17:297-334.
32. Muniz J.,Hambleton R. K.,Xing D.Small sample studies to detect flaws in Item translations.International Journal of Testing. 2001;1:115-135.
33. Osterlind S. J.,Everson H. T.Differential item functioning. 2009). Differential item functioning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2009:.
34. PaekI. (2002). Investigation of differential item functioning: Comparisons among approaches, and extension to a multidimensional context (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.
35. Parshall C. G.,Miller T. R.Exact versus asymptotic Mantel-Haenszel DIF statistics: A comparison of performance under small-sample conditions.Journal of Educational Measurement. 1995;32:302-316.
36. Rasch G.Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1980:.
37. Rijimen F.,Tuerlinckx F.,De Boeck P.,Kuppens P.A nonlinear mixed model framework for item response theory.Psychological Methods. 2003;8:185-205.
38. Roussos L. A.,Schnipke D. L.,Pashley P. J.A generalized formula for the Mantel-Haenszel differential item functioning parameter.Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 1999;24:293-322.
39. SAS online doc. Cary, NC: Author; 1999:.
40. Schulz E. M.,Perlman C.,Rice W. K.,Wright B. D. An empirical comparison of Rasch and Mantel-Haenszel procedures for assessing differential item functioning,. Objective measurement: Theory into practice. Engelhard G.Wilson M., ed. Norwood, NJ: Ablex; 1996:65-82.
41. Shaffer J. P.Directional statistical hypotheses and comparisons among means.Psychological Bulletin. 1972;77:195-197.
42. Shaffer J. P.Bidirectional unbiased procedures.Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1974;69:437-439.
43. Shealy R.,Stout W. F.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. 1993;58:159-194.
44. Skrondal A.,Rabe-Hesketh S.Generalized latent variable modeling: Multilevel, longitudinal and structural equation models. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2004:.
45. Thissen D.,Steinberg L.,Gerrard M.Beyond group mean differences: The concept of item bias.Psychological Bulletin. 1986;99:118-128.
46. Thissen D.,Steinberg L.,Wainer H. Use of item response theory in the study of group differences in trace lines, Test validity. Winter H.Braun H., ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988:147-169.
47. Thissen D.,Steinberg L.,Wainer H. Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models, Differential item functioning. Holland P. W.Wainer H., ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1993:67-113.
48. Tukey J. W.The philosophy of multiple comparisons.Statistical Science. 1991;6:100-116.
49. Van den Noortgate W.,De Boeck P.,Meulders M.Cross-classification multilevel logistic models in psychometrics.Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 2003;28:369-386.
50. Van den Noortgate W.,Paek I. Person regression models, Explanatory item response models: A generalized linear and nonlinear approach. De Boeck P.Wilson M., ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2004:167-187.
51. Wang W.-C.Effects of anchor item methods on the detection of differential item functioning within the family of Rasch models.Journal of Experimental Education. 2004;72:221-261.
52. Wang W.-C.Assessment of differential item functioning.Journal of Applied Measurement. 2008;9:387-408.
53. Wang W.-C.,Su Y.-H.Effects of average signed area between two item characteristic curves and test purification procedures on the DIF detection via the Mantel-Haenszel method.Applied Measurement in Education. 2004;17:113-144.
54. Wright B. D.,Stone M. H.Best test design. Chicago, IL: MESA; 1979:.
55. Wu M. L.,Adams R. J.,Wilson M. R.Conquest: Generalized item response modeling software. Camberwell, Victoria, Australia: ACER; 1998:.
56. Zwick R.When do item response function and Mantel-Haenszel definitions of differential item functioning coincide?.Journal of Educational Statistics. 1990;15:185-197.