Detecting DIF across the different language groups in a speaking test

Language Testing

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 89-114

  Kim, Mikyung ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84990393867     PISSN: 02655322     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/026553220101800104     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Ackerman, T. A., Simpson, M. A. and de la Torre, J. 2000: A comparison of the dimensionality of TOEFL response data from different first language groups. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, Louisiana.
2. AERA / APA / NCME (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education) 1999: Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
3. Bachman, L. F., Davidson, F., Ryan, K. and Choi, I.-C. 1993: An investigation into the comparability of two tests of English as a foreign language: the Cambridge-TOEFL comparability study. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
4. Brown, J. D. 1999: The relative importance of persons, items, subtests and languages to TOEFL test variance. Language Testing 16 (2), 217-238.
5. Chen, Z. and Henning, G. 1985: Linguistic and cultural bias in language proficiency tests. Language Testing 2 (2), 155-163.
6. Clauser, B. and Mazor, K. 1998: Using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning test items. ITEMS, 31-44.
7. Educational Testing Service. 1985: SPEAK examinee handbook and sample questions. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
8. Ginther, A. and Stevens, J. 1998: Language background and ethnicity, and the internal construct validity of the Advanced Placement Spanish Language Examination. In Kunnan, A. J., editor, Validation in language assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 169-194.
9. Hale, G. A., Rock, D. A. and Jirele, T. 1989: Confirmatory factor analysis of the Test of English as a Foreign Language. TOEFL Research Report No. 32. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
10. Kim, S. H. and Cohen, A. 1995: A comparison of Lord's Chi-Square, Raju's Area Measures, and the Likelihood Ratio Test on Detecting of Differential Item Functioning. Applied Measurement in Education 8(4), 291-312.
11. Kirk, R. E. 1996: Practical significance: a concept whose time has come. Educational and Psychological Measurement 56, 746-759.
12. Kunnan, A. J. 1994: Modelling relationships among some test-taker characteristics and performance on EFL tests: an approach to construct validation. Language Testing 11 (3), 225-252.
13. Lord, F. M. 1980: Application of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Oltman, P. K., Stricker, L. J. and Barrows, T. 1988: Native language, English proficiency, and the structure of the Test of English as a Foreign Language for several language groups. TOEFL Research Report No. 27. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
15. Prentice, D. A. and Miller, D. T. 1992: When small effects are impressive. Psychological Bulletin 112 (1), 160-164.
16. Raju, N. S. 1988: The area between two item characteristic curves. Psychometrika 53, 495-502.
17. Rogers, H. J. and Swaminathan, H. 1993: A comparison of logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement 17 (2), 105-116.
18. Ryan, K. and Bachman, L. F. 1992: Differential item functioning on two tests of EFL proficiency. Language Testing 9 (1), 12-29.
19. Samejima, F. 1969: Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometric monograph No. 17.
20. Samejima, F. 1996: Graded response model. In van der Linden, W. and Hambleton, R., editors, Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer, 85-100.
21. Sasaki, M. 1991: A comparison of two methods for detecting differential item functioning in an ESL placement test. Language Testing 8(2), 95-111.
22. SPSS Incorporated 1997: SPSS 8.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.
23. Swaminathan, H. and Rogers, H. J. 1990: Detecting item bias using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement 27, 361-370.
24. Swinton, S. S. and Powers, D. E. 1980: Factor analysis of the Test of English as a Foreign Language for several language groups. TOEFL Research Report No. 6. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
25. Thissen, D. 1991: MULTILOG user's guide. Computer program. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.
26. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L. and Wainer, H. 1988: Use of item response theory in the study of group differences in trace lines. In Wainer, H. and Braun, H. I., editors, Test validity. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 147-169.
27. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L. and Wainer, H. 1993: Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. In Holland, P. W. and Wainer, H., editors, Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 67-113.
28. Zumbo, B. 1999: A Handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning: logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-Type (ordinal) item scores. Ottawa: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.