Using a differential item functioning approach to investigate measurement invariance

Cross-Cultural Analysis: Methods and Applications

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 415-432

  Janssen, Rianne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84921376168     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203882924     Document Type: Chapter

References (32)

1. Ackerman, T. A. (1992). A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact, and item validity from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 67-91.
2. Camilli, G. (1994). Origin of the scaling constant d = 1. 7 in item response theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 19, 293-295.
3. Clariana, R., & Wallace, P. (2002). Paper-based versus computer-based assessment: Key factors associated with the test mode effect. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 593-602.
4. De Boeck, P., & Wilson, M. (Eds.). (2004). Explanatory item response models: A generalized linear and nonlinear approach. New York, NY: Springer.
5. de Bonis, M., Lebeaux, M. O., De Boeck, P., Simon, M., & Pichot, P. (1991). Measuring the severity of depression through a self-report inventory: A comparison of logistic, factorial and implicit models. Journal of Affective Disorders, 22, 55-64.
6. Dorans, N. J., & Holland, P. W. (1993). DIF detection and description: Mantel-Haenszel and standardisation. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 35-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. Dorans, N. J., & Kulick, E. (1986). Demonstrating the utility of the standardization approach to assessing unexpected differential item performance on the scholastic aptitude test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23, 355-368.
8. 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.
9. Fischer, G., & Molenaar, I. (1995). Rasch models: Foundations and recent developments. New York, NY: Springer.
10. Glockner-Rist, A., & Hoijtink, H. (2003). The best of both worlds: Factor analysis of dichotomous data using item response theory and structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 544-565.
11. Hoijtink, H. (1991). The measurement of latent traits by proximity items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15, 153-170.
12. Hoijtink, H., & Molenaar, I. W. (1992). Testing for DIF in a model with single peaked item characteristic curves: The PARELLA model. Psychometrika, 57, 383-398.
13. Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129-145). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Mellenbergh, G. J. (1982). Contingency table models for assessing item bias. Journal of Educational Statistics, 7, 105-118.
16. Meulders, M., & Xie, Y. (2004). Person-by-item predictors. In P. De Boeck & M. Wilson (Eds.). Explanatory item response models: A generalized linear and nonlinear approach (pp. 213-240). New York, NY: Springer.
17. Millsap, R. E., & Everson, H. T. (1993). Methodology review: Statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 297-334.
18. Navas-Ara, M. J., & Gomez-Benito, J. (2002). Effects of ability scale purification on the identification of DIF. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19, 9-15.
19. Ostini, R., & Nering, M. L. (2005). Polytomous item response theory models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20. Parshall, C. G., Spray, J. A., Kalohn J. C., & Davey T. (2002). Practical considerations in computer-based testing. New York, NY: Springer.
21. Rasch, G. N. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Institute for Educational Research.
22. Rijmen, F., Tuerlinckx, F., De Boeck, P., & Kuppens, P. (2003). A nonlinear mixed model framework for item response theory. Psychological Methods, 8, 185-205.
23. Schaeffer, N. C. (1988). Application of item response theory to the measurement of depression. In C. C. Clogg (Ed.), Sociological methodology (Vol. 18, pp. 271-308). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
24. Shealy, R. T., & Stout, W. (1993). A model-based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from group ability differences and detects test bias/DIF as well as item bias/DIF. Psychometrika, 58, 159-194.
25. Sijtsma, K., & Molenaar, I. W. (2002). Introduction to nonparametric item response theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26. Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 361-370.
27. Takane, Y., & de Leeuw, J. (1987). On the relationship between item response theory and factor analysis of discretized variables. Psychometrika, 52, 393-408.
28. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Gerrard, M. (1986). Beyond group mean differences: The concept of item bias. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 118-128.
29. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1988). Use of item response theory in the study of group difference in trace lines. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 147-169). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1993). Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. In P. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 67-113). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31. Volckaert, B., & Janssen, R. (2005, May). Differential Item Functioning als methode om de equivalentie tussen computerondersteunde en papieren toetsen te achterhalen [Differential item functioning as a method to investigate the equivalence between a computerbased and a paper-and-pencil test]. Paper presented at the ORD conference of the Dutch and Flemish society for educational research, Gent, Belgium.
32. Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Three generations of DIF analyses: Considering where it has been, where it is now, and where it is going. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4, 223-233.