Solving the measurement invariance anchor item problem in item response theory

Journal of Applied Psychology

Volumn 97, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 1016-1031

  Meade, Adam W ^a   Wright, Natalie A ^a  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Anchor items; Differential item functioning; Invariance tests; Reference items

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; METHODOLOGY; ORGANIZATION; PSYCHOLOGY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; FOCUS GROUPS; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE; PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED;

EID: 84871701551     PISSN: 00219010     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0027934     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 57, 289-300.
2. Bolt, D. M. (2002). A Monte Carlo comparison of parametric and nonparametric polytomous DIF detection methods. Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 113-141. doi:10.1207/S15324818AME1502_01
3. Candell, G. L., & Drasgow, F. (1988). An iterative procedure for linking metrics and assessing item bias in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 253-260. doi:10.1177/014662168801200304
4. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups: A reconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal of Management, 25, 1-27. doi:10.1177/014920639902500101
5. Clark, P. C., & LaHuis, D. M. (2012). An examination of power and Type I errors for two differential item functioning indices using the graded response model. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 229-246. doi: 10.1177/1094428111403815
6. Engelhard, G., Jr., Hansche, L., & Rutledge, K. E. (1990). Accuracy of bias review judges in identifying differential item functioning on teacher certification tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 3, 347-360. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame0304_4
7. Finch, H. (2005). The MIMIC model as a method for detecting DIF: Comparison with Mantel-Haenszel, SIBTEST, and the IRT likelihood ratio. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 278-295. doi:10.1177/0146621605275728
8. Finch, W. H., & French, B. F. (2007). Detection of crossing differential item functioning: A comparison of four methods. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 565-582. doi:10.1177/0013164406296975
9. Flowers, C. P., Oshima, T. C., & Raju, N. S. (1999). A description and demonstration of the polytomous-DFIT framework. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 309-326. doi:10.1177/01466219922031437
10. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. D. Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (pp. 7-28). Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
11. Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item functioning and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 139-145). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12. Horn, J. L., & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18, 117-144. doi:10.1080/03610739208253916
13. Johnson, E. C., Meade, A. W., & DuVernet, A. M. (2009). The role of referent indicators in tests of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 642-657. doi:10.1080/10705510903206014
14. Kim, S. H., & Cohen, A. S. (1995). A comparison of Lord's chi-square, Raju's area measures, and the likelihood ratio test on detection of differential item functioning. Applied Measurement in Education, 8, 291-312. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame0804_2
15. Lautenschlager, G. J., Flaherty, V. L., & Park, D. G. (1994). IRT differential item functioning: An examination of ability scale purifications. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 21-31. doi:10.1177/0013164494054001003
16. Lopez Rivas, G. E., Stark, S., & Chernyshenko, O. S. (2009). The effects of referent item parameters on differential item functioning detection using the free baseline likelihood ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 251-265. doi:10.1177/0146621608321760
17. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Meade, A. W. (2010). A taxonomy of effect size measures for the differential functioning of items and scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 728-743. doi:10.1037/a0018966
19. Meade, A. W., & Bauer, D. J. (2007). Power and precision in confirmatory factor analytic tests of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 611-635. doi:10.1080/10705510701575461
20. Meade, A. W., & Lautenschlager, G. J. (2004). A comparison of item response theory and confirmatory factor analytic methodologies for establishing measurement equivalence/invariance. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 361-388. doi:10.1177/1094428104268027
21. Meade, A. W., Lautenschlager, G. J., & Johnson, E. C. (2007). A Monte Carlo examination of the sensitivity of the differential functioning of items and tests framework for tests of measurement invariance with Likert data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31, 430-455. doi: 10.1177/0146621606297316
22. Navas-Ara, M. J., & Gómez-Benito, J. (2002). Effects of ability scale purification on the identification of dif. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 9-15. doi:10.1027//1015-5759.18.1.9
23. Park, D. G., & Lautenschlager, G. J. (1990). Improving IRT item bias detection with iterative linking and ability scale purification. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 163-173. doi:10.1177/014662169001400205
24. Raju, N. S., Laffitte, L. J., & Byrne, B. M. (2002). Measurement equivalence: A comparison of methods based on confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 517-529. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.517
25. 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. doi:10.1177/014662169501900405
26. Reise, S. P., & Yu, J. (1990). Parameter recovery in the graded response model using MULTILOG. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 133-144. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1990.tb00738.x
27. Rivers, D. C., Meade, A. W., & Fuller, W. L. (2009). Examining question and context effects in organization survey data using item response theory. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 529-553. doi:10.1177/1094428108315864
28. Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, 34, 100-114.
29. Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Drasgow, F. (2006). Detecting differential item functioning with confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Toward a unified strategy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1292-1306. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1292
30. Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Drasgow, F., & Williams, B. A. (2006). Examining assumptions about item responding in personality assessment: Should ideal point methods be considered for scale development and scoring? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 25-39. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.25
31. Thissen, D. (1991). MULTILOG user's guide: Multiple categorical item analysis and test scoring using item response theory [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
32. Thissen, D. (2001). IRTLRDIF v. 2.02b: Software for the computation of the statistics involved in item response theory likelihood-ratio tests for differential item functioning [Computer software]. Chapel Hill, NC: LL Thurstone Psychometric Laboratory.
33. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1988). Use of item response theory in the study of group differences in trace lines. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 147-172). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1993). Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 67-113). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35. Vandenberg, R. J. (2002). Toward a further understanding of an improvement in measurement invariance methods and procedures. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 139-158. doi:10.1177/1094428102005002001
36. Wang, W., Shih, C., & Yang, C. (2009). The MIMIC method with scale purification for detecting differential item functioning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 713-731. doi:10.1177/0013164409332228
37. Wang, W.-C., & Yeh, Y.-L. (2003). Effects of anchor item methods on differential item functioning detection with the likelihood ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 479 - 498. doi:10.1177/0146621603259902
38. Woods, C. M. (2009). Empirical selection of anchors for tests of differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 42-57. doi:10.1177/0146621607314044