Assessing the Item Response Theory With Covariate (IRT-C) Procedure for Ascertaining Differential Item Functioning

International Journal of Testing

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 201-222

  Tay, Louis ^a   Vermunt, Jeroen K ^b   Wang, Chun ^c  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

differential item functioning; item response theory; multiple covariates; simulation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84879049479     PISSN: 15305058     EISSN: 15327574     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15305058.2012.692415     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Bartholomew, D. J. and Tzamourani, P. 1999. The goodness-of-fit of latent trait models in attitude measurement. Sociological Methods & Research, 27: 525 - 546.
2. Bolt, D. M. 2005. " Limited- and full-information estimation of item response theory models ". In Contemporary psychometrics: A festschrift for Roderick P. McDonald, Edited by: Bolt, D. M. and McArdle, J. J. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Ptables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 59: 173 - 194.
4. Dias, J. M. G. 2004. Finite mixture models: Review, applications and computer intensive methods, (Unpublished doctoral dissertation): University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
5. Drasgow, F., Levine, M. V., Tsien, S., Williams, B. A. and Mead, A. D. 1995. Fitting polytomous item response models to multiple-choice tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19: 145 - 165.
6. 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.
7. Finch, H. and 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.
8. Forero, C. G. and Maydeu-Olivares, A. 2009. Estimation of IRT graded response models: Limited versus full information methods. Psychological Methods, 14: 275 - 299.
9. Glas, C. A. W. 1998. Detection of differential item functioning using Lagrange Multiplier tests. Statistica Sinica, 8: 647 - 667.
10. Glas, C. A. W. 1999. Modification indices for the 2-PL and the nominal response model. Psychometrika, 64: 273 - 294.
11. Holland, W. P. and Thayer, D. T. 1988. " Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure ". In Test validity, Edited by: Wainer, H. and Braun, H. I. 129 - 145. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12. Hulin, C. L., Drasgow, F. and Parsons, C. K. 1983. Item response theory: Application to psychological measurement, Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
13. Kim, S.-H., Cohen, A. S. and Park, T.-H. 1995. Detection of differential item functioning in multiple groups. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32: 261 - 276.
14. Lord, F. M. 1980. Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Matsumoto, D. and Yoo, S. H. 2006. Toward a new generation of cross-cultural research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1 (3): 234 - 250. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00014.x
16. Meade, A. W., Lautenschlager, G. J. and 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.
17. Millsap, R. E. and Everson, H. T. 1993. Methodology review: Statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17: 297 - 334.
18. Muthén, B. O. 1985. A method for studying the homogeneity of test items with respect to other relevant variables. Journal of Educational Statistics, 10: 121 - 132.
19. Muthén, B. O. 1988. " Some uses of structural equation modeling in validity studies: Extending IRT to external variables ". In Test validity, Edited by: Wainer, H. and Braun, H. I. 213 - 238. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20. Narayanan, P. and Swaminathan, H. 1994. Performance of the Mantel-Haenszel and simultaneous item bias procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18: 315 - 328.
21. Paek, I. 2010. Conservativeness in rejection of the null hypothesis when using the continuity correction in the MH chi-square test in DIF applications. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34: 539 - 548.
22. Penfield, R. D. 2001. Assessing differential item functioning among multiple groups: A comparison of three Mantel-Haenszel procedures. Applied Measurement in Education, 14: 235 - 259.
23. Penfield, R. D. 2010. Modeling DIF effects using distractor-level invariance effects: Implications for understanding the causes of DIF. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34: 151 - 165. doi: 10.1177/0146621609359284
24. R Development Core Team. 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing Vienna, Austria R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org
25. Raju, N. S. 1988. The area between two item characteristic curves. Psychometrika, 53: 495 - 502.
26. Rogers, J. H. and Swaminathan, H. 1993. A comparison of logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17: 105 - 116.
27. Saris, W. E., Satorra, A. and Sörbom, D. 1987. The detection and correction of specification errors in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 17: 105 - 129.
28. Shih, C.-L. and Wang, W.-C. 2009. Differential item functioning detecting using Multiple Indicators, Multiple Causes method with a pure short anchor. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33: 184 - 199.
29. Sörbom, D. 1989. Model modification. Psychometrika, 54: 371 - 384.
30. Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S. and 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.
31. Steinberg, L. and Thissen, D. 2006. Using effect sizes for research reporting: Examples using item response theory to analyze differential item functioning. Psychological Methods, 11: 402 - 415.
32. Swaminathan, H. and Rogers, J. H. 1990. Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27: 361 - 370.
33. Tay, L., Ali, U. S., Drasgow, F. and Williams, B. A. 2011. Fitting simulated dichotomous and polytomous data: Examining the difference between ideal point and dominance models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 35: 280 - 295.
34. Tay, L., Drasgow, F. and Vermunt, J. K. 2011. An IRT approach for simultaneously assessing the relative impact of different variables on SAT® latent scores and differential item functioning, New York, NY: College Board. (Technical Report)
35. Tay, L., Newman, D. A. and Vermunt, J. K. 2011. Using mixed-measurement item response theory with covariates (MM-IRT-C) to ascertain observed and unobserved measurement equivalence. Organizational Research Methods, 14: 147 - 176. doi: 10.1177/1094428110366037
36. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L. and Wainer, H. 1993. " Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models ". In Differential item functioning, Edited by: Holland, P. W. and Wainer, H. 67 - 113. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
37. Van den Wollenberg, A. L. 1982. Two new test statistics for the Rasch model. Psychometrika, 47: 123 - 140.
38. Vermunt, J. K. and Magidson, J. 2005. Technical guide for Latent GOLD 4.0: Basic and advanced, Belmont, MA: Statistical Innovations Inc.
39. Vermunt, J. K. and Magidson, J. 2008. Latent GOLD 4.5, Belmont, MA: Statistical Innovations Inc. [Computer program]
40. Vermunt, J. K., van Ginkel, J. R., van der Ark, L. A. and Sijtsma, K. 2008. Multiple imputation of incomplete categorical data using latent class analysis. Sociological Methodology, 33: 369 - 397.
41. Wang, W.-C., Shih, C.-L. and Yang, C.-C. 2009. The MIMIC method with scale purification for detecting differential item functioning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69: 713 - 731.
42. Woods, C. M. 2009a. Evaluation of MIMIC-model methods for DIF testing with comparison to two-group analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44: 1 - 27.
43. Woods, C. M. 2009b. Empirical selection of anchors for tests of differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33: 42 - 57.
44. Woods, C. M. and Grimm, K. J. 2011. Testing of nonuniform differential item functioning with Multiple Indicator Multiple Cause models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 35: 339 - 361.
45. Woods, C. M., Oltmanns, T. F. and Turkheimer, E. 2009. Illustration of MIMIC-model DIF testing with the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 31: 320 - 330.