Differential item performance and the mantel-haenszel procedure

Test Validity

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 129-145

  Holland, Paul W ^a   Thayer, Dorothy T ^a  

^a EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84976959244     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (32)

1. Angoff, W. H., & Ford, S. F. (1973). Item-race interaction on a test of scholastic aptitude. Journal of Educational Measurement, 10, 95-106.
2. Baker, F. B. (1981). A criticism of Scheuneman's item bias technique. Journal of Educational Measurement, 18, 59-62.
3. Berk, R. A. (Ed.). (1982). Handbook of methods for detecting test bias. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
4. Birch, M. W. (1964). The detection of partial association, I: The 2x2 case. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Ser. B, 26, 313-324.
5. Bishop, Y. M. M., Fienberg, S. E., & Holland, P. W. (1975). Discrete multivariate analysis: Theory and practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Bock, R. D., & Aitkin, M. (1981). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of the EM algorithm. Psychometrika, 46, 443-460.
7. Breslow, N. E., & Liang, K. Y. (1982). The variance of the Mantel-Haenszel Estimator. Biometrics, 38, 943-952.
8. Cardall, C, & Coffman, W. E. (1964). A method for comparing the performance of different groups on the items in a test. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Research Bulletin RB-64-61.
9. Cochran, W. G. (1954). Some methods for strengthening the common x2 test. Biometrics, 10, 417-451.
10. Cox, D. R. (1970). Analysis of binary data. London: Methuen.
11. Cressie, N., & Holland, P. W.. (1983). Characterizing the manifest probabilities of latent trait models. Psychometrika, 48, 129-141.
12. Dorans, N. J., & Kulick, E. M. (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.
13. Flanders, W. D. (1985). A new variance estimator for the Mantel-Haenszel odds-ratio. Biometrics, 41, 637-642.
14. Hauck, W. W. (1979). The large sample variance of the Mantel-Haenszel estimator of a common odds ratio. Biometrics, 35, 817-819.
15. Holland, P. W. (1981). When are item response models consistent with observed data? Psychometrika, 46, 79-92.
16. Holland, P. W. (1985). On the study of Differential Item Performance without IRT. Proceedings of the Military Testing Association, October.
17. Holland, P. W., & Rosenbaum, P. R. (1986). Conditional association and unidimensionality in monotone latent variable models. Annals of Statistics, 14, 1523-1543.
18. Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1985). An alternative definition of the ETS delta scale of item difficulty. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Research Report RR-85-43.
19. Kok, F. G., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van der Flier, H. (1985). Detecting experimentally induced item bias using the iterative logit method. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22, 295-303.
20. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. Mantel, N., & Haenszel, W. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 719-748.
22. Marascuilo, L. A., & Slaughter, R. E. (1981). Statistical procedures for identifying possible sources of item bias based on x2 statistics. Journal of Educational Measurement, 18, 229-248.
23. Mellenbergh, G. J. (1982). Contingency table models for assessing item bias. Journal of Educational Statistics, 7, 105-118.
24. Phillips, A., & Holland, P. W. (1987). Estimators of the variance of the Mantel-Haenszel log-odds-ratio estimate. Biometrics, 43, 425-431.
25. Robbins, J., Breslow, N., & Greenland, S. (1986). Estimation of the Mantel-Haenszel variance consistent in both sparse data and large-strata limiting models. Biometrics, 42, 311-324.
26. Rosenbaum, P. R. (1984). Testing the conditional independence and monotonicity assumptions of item response theory. Psychometrika, 49, 425-435.
27. Rosenbaum, P. R. (1985). Comparing distributions of item responses for two groups. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 206-215.
28. Rosenbaum, P. R. (1986). Comparing item characteristic curves. (Unpublished manuscript).
29. Scheuneman, J. D. (1979). A method of assessing bias in test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 16, 143-152.
30. Scheuneman, J. D. (1981). A response to Baker's criticism. Journal of Educational Measurement, 18, 63-66.
31. Shepard, L. A., Camilli, G., & Williams, D. M. (1984). Accounting for statistical artifacts in item bias research. Journal of Educational Statistics, 9, 93-128.
32. Thissen, D., Wainer, H., & Steinberg, L. (1985). Studying differential item performance with item response theory. Paper presented at the Military Testing Association meeting, San Diego, CA, October 21.