Using Statistical Procedures to Identify Differentially Functioning Test Items

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 31-44

  Clauser, Brian E ^a   Mazor, Kathleen M ^b  

^a NATIONAL BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84927163182     PISSN: 07311745     EISSN: 17453992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1998.tb00619.x     Document Type: Article

References (52)

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. (1993). The case against item bias detection techniques based on internal criteria: Do item bias procedures obscure test fairness issues? In P. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 397–418). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
4. 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.
5. Clauser, B. E., Mazor, K. M., & Hambleton, R. K. (1993). The effects of purification of the matching criterion on identification of DIF using the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Applied Measurement in Education, 6, 269–279.
6. Clauser, B. E., Nungester, R. J., Mazor, K., & Ripkey, D. (1996). A comparison of alternative matching strategies for DIF detection in tests that are multidimensional. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 202–214.
7. Clauser, B. E., Nungester, R. J., & Swaminathan, H. (1996). Improving the matching for DIF analysis by conditioning on both test score and an educational background variable. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 453464.
8. Cohen, A. S., Kim, S., & Wollack, J. A. (1996). An investigation of the likelihood ratio test for detection of differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 15–26.
9. Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on the validity argument. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 3-17). Hillsdale, N J Erlbaum.
10. Donoghue, J. R., & Allen, N. L. (1993). Thin versus thick matching in the Mantel-Haenszel procedure for detecting DIF. Journal o f Educational Statistics, 18, 131–154.
11. Donoghue, J. R., Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1993). A Monte Carlo study of factors that affect the Mantel-Haenszel and standardization measures of differential item functioning. In P. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 137–1661), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Dorans, N. J. (1989). Two new approaches to assessing differential item functioning: Standardization and the Mantel-Haenszel method. Applied Measurement in Education, 2, 217–233.
13. Dorans, N. J., & Kullick, 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.
14. Douglas, J. A., Roussos, L. A., & Stout, W. (1996). Item-bundle DIF hypothesis testing: Identifying suspect bundles and assessing their differential functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 465484.
15. Hambleton, R. K., Bollwark, J., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Factors affecting the stability of the Mantel-Haenszel item bias statistic. (Laboratory of Psychometric and Evaluative Research, Research Report 203). Amherst, MA University of Massachusetts, School of Education.
16. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item, response theorv. Newbury Park, CA Sage Publications.
17. Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129–145). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (Eds.), (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. Lewis, C. (1993). A note on the value of including the studied item in the test score when analyzing test items for DIF. In P. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.) Differential item functioning (pp. 317–3201), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Li, H., & Stout, W. (1996). A new procedure for detection of crossing DIF. Psychometrika, 61, 647–677.
21. Linacre, J. M., & Wright, B. D. (1986). Item bias: Mantel-Haenszel and the Rasch model (MESA Psychometric Laboratory, Memorandum No. 39). Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Education.
22. Linn, R. L. (1993). The use of differential item functioning statistics: A discussion of current practice and future implications. In Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 349–364 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum).
23. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. Mazor, K. M., Clauser, B. E., & Hambleton, R. K. (1994). Identification of non-uniform differentia1 item functioning using a variation of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 284–291.
25. Mazor, K., Hambleton, R. K., & Clauser, B. E. (in press). The effects of conditioning on two internally derived ability estimates in multidimensional DIF analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement.
26. Mazor, K., Kanjee, A., & Clauser, B. E. (1995). Using logistic regression and the Mantel-Haenszel with multiple ability estimates to detect differential item functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 131–144.
27. Messick, S. (1988). The once and future issues of validity: Assessing the meaning and consequences of measurement. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 33–45). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. Miller, T. R., & Spray, J. A. (1993). Logistic discriminant function analysis for DIF identification of polytomously scored items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 107–122.
29. 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.
30. Norusis, M. J. (1993). SPSS for windows advanced statistics. Chicago: SPSS.
31. Raju, N. S. (1988). The area between two item characteristic curves. Psychometrika, 54, 495–502.
32. Raju, N. S. (1990). Determining the significance of estimated signed and unsigned areas between two item response functions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 197–207.
33. Ramsey, P. A. (1993). Sensitivity review: The ETS experience as a case study. In P. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 367–3881). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Rogers, H. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1989). Evaluation of computer simulated baseline statistics for use in item bias studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 355–369.
35. Rogers, H. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1994). MH: A FORTRAN 77 program to compute the Mantel-Haenszel statistic for detecting differential item functioning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 101–104.
36. Rogers, H. J., & Swaminathan, H. (1993a) A comparison of logistic regression and the Mantel-Haenszel procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 105–116.
37. Rogers, H. J., & Swaminathan, H. (1993-13, April). Logistic regression procedures for detecting DIF in non-dichotomous item responses. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
38. Roussos, L. A., & Stout, W. F. (1996). Simulation studies of the effects of small sample size and studied item parameters on SIBTEST and Mantel-Haenszel Type I error performance. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 215–230.
39. Shealy, R., & Stout, W. F. (1993). A model-based standardization approach that separates true biaslDIF from group differences and detects test bias/DTF as well as item bias/DIF. Psychometriha, 58.
40. Shepard, L. A., Camilli, G., & Williams, D. M. (1984). Accounting for statistical artifacts in item bias research. Journal of Educational Statistics, 9, 93–128. 159–194.
41. Stout, W., Li, H., Nandakumar, R., & Bolt, D. (1997). MULTISIB: A wocedure to investigate DIF when a test is intentionally two bimensional, Applied-Psychological Measurement, 21, 195–213.
42. Stout, W., & Roussos, L. (1995). SIBTEST manual (2nd ed.). Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
43. Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 361–370.
44. 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. 67–114). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
45. Wainer, H. (1995). Precision and differential item functioning on a testlet-based test: The 1991 Law School Admissions Test as an example. Applied Measurement in Education, 8, 157–186.
46. Wainer, H., Sireci, S. G., & Thissen, D. (1991). Differential testlet functioning: Definitions and detection. Journal of Educationa Measurement, 28, 197–219.
47. Welch, C., & Hoover, H. D. (1993). Procedures for extending item bias detection techniques to polytomously scored items. Applied Measurement in Education, 6, 1–19.
48. Welch, C. J., & Miller, T. R. (1995). Assessing differential item functioning in direct writing assessments: Problems and an example. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 163–178.
49. Zieky, M. (1993). Practical questions in the use of DIF statistics in test development. In P. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 337–348). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
50. Zwick, R. (1990). When do item response function and Mantel Haenszel definitions of differential item functioning coincide? Journal of Educational Statistics, 15, 185–197.
51. Zwick, R., Donoghue, J. R., & Grima, A. (1993). Assessment of differential item functioning for performance tasks. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 233–251.
52. Zwick, R., & Ercikan, K. (1989). Analysis of differential item functioning in the NAEP history assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 44–66.