Factors influencing the Mantel and generalized Mantel-Haenszel methods for the assessment of differential item functioning in polytomous items

Applied Psychological Measurement

Volumn 28, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 450-480

  Wang, Wen Chung ^a   Su, Ya Hui ^a  

^a NATIONAL CHUNG CHENG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Average signed area; Graded response model; Partial credit model; Power; Test purification; Type I error

Indexed keywords

EID: 8644231087     PISSN: 01466216     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0146621604269792     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Ankenmann, R. D., Witt, E. A., & Dunbar, S. B. (1999). An investigation of the power of the likelihood ratio goodness-of-fit statistic in detecting differential item functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 277-300.
2. Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability. In F. M. Lord & M. R. Novick (Eds.), Statistical theories of mental test scores (pp. 397-479). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3. Bolt, D. M. (2002). A Monte Carlo comparison of parametric and nonparametric polytomous DIF detection methods. Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 113-141.
4. Budgell, G. R., Raju, N. S., & Quartetti, D. A. (1995). Analysis of differential item functioning in translated assessment instruments. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 309-321.
5. Chang, H.-H., & Mazzeo, J. (1994). The unique correspondence of the item response function and item category response functions in polytomously scored item response models. Psychometrika, 59, 391-404.
6. Chang, H.-H., Mazzeo, J., & Roussos, J. (1996). Detecting DIF for polytomously scored items: An adaptation of the SIBTEST procedure. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 333-353.
7. Chilisa, B. (2000). Towards equity in assessment: Crafting gender-fair assessment. Assessment in Education, 7, 61-81.
8. Clauser, B., Mazor, K., & Hambleton, R. K. (1993). The effects of purification of the matching criterion on the identification of DIF using the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Applied Measurement in Education, 6, 269-279.
9. Cohen, A. S., Kim, S.-H., & Baker, F. B. (1993). Detection of differential item functioning in the graded response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 335-350.
10. Dodeen, H., & Johanson, G. A. (2003). An analysis of sex-related differential item functioning in attitude assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 129-134.
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. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 137-166). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12. Dorans, N. J., & Schmitt, A. P. (1993). Constructed response and differential item functioning: A programmatic perspective. In R. E. Bennett & W. C. Ward (Eds.), Construction versus choice in cognitive measurement (pp. 135-165). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. Fidalgo, A. M., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Muñiz, J. (2000). Effects of amount of DIF, test length, and purification type on robustness and power of Mantel-Haenszel procedures. Methods of Psychological Research, 5(3), 43-53.
14. 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.
15. Huang, C. D., Church, A. T., & Katigbak, M. S. (1997). Identifying cultural differences in items and traits: Differential item functioning in the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 192-218.
16. Jodoin, M. G., & Gierl, M. J. (2001). Evaluating Type I error and power rates using an effect size measure with the logistic regression procedure for DIF detection. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 329-349.
17. Kim, S.-H., & Cohen, A. S. (1998). Detection of differential item functioning under the graded response model with the likelihood ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 345-355.
18. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Mailer, S. J. (2001). Differential item functioning in the WISC-III: Item parameters for boys and girls in the national standardization sample. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 793-817.
20. Mantel, N. (1963). Chi-square tests with one degree of freedom: Extensions of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 690-700.
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. Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149-174.
23. Mazor, K. M., Clauser, B. E., & Hambleton, R. K. (1994). Identification of non-uniform differential item functioning using a variation of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 284-291.
24. Meredith, W., & Millsap, R. E. (1992). On the misuse of manifest variables in the detection of measurement bias. Psychometrika, 57, 289-311.
25. Miller, M. D., & Oshima, T. C. (1992). Effect of sample size, number of biased items, and magnitude of bias on a two-stage item bias estimation method. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 381-388.
26. Miller, T. R., & Spray, J. A. (1993). Logistic discrimination function analysis for DIF identification of polytomously scored items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 107-122.
27. Mullis, I., Dossey, J., Owen, E., & Phillips, G. (1993). NAEP 1992 mathematics report card for the nation and the states. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
28. 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.
29. Narayanan, P., & Swaminathan, H. (1996). Identification of items that show nonuniform DIF. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 257-274.
30. Raju, N. S. (1988). The area between two item characteristic curves. Psychometrika, 53, 495-502.
31. Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests (Expanded ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1960).
32. Rogers, H. J., & Swaminathan, H. (1993). A comparison of logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 105-116.
33. Roussos, L., & Stout, W. (1996). Simulation studies of 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.
34. Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, 17, 1-100.
35. Shealy, R. T., & Stout, W. F. (1993). A model-biased standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from group ability differences and detects test bias/DTF as well as item bias/DIF. Psychometrika, 58, 159-194.
36. Somes, G. W. (1986). The generalized Mantel-Haenszel statistic. The American Statistician, 40, 106-108.
37. Soper, J. C., & Walstad, W. B. (1987). Test of economic literacy: Examiner's manual (2nd ed.). New York: National Council on Economic Education.
38. Spray, J. A., & Miller, T. R. (1994). Identifying nonuniform DIF in polytomously scored test items (Research Report Series 94-1). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing.
39. Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 361-370.
40. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1988). Use of item response theory in the study of group differences in trace lines. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 147-169). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41. Uttaro, T., & Millsap, R. E. (1994). Factors influencing the Mantel-Haenszel procedure in the detection of differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 15-25.
42. Walstad, W. B., & Robson, D. (1997). Differential item functioning and male-female differences on multiple-choice tests in economics. Journal of Economic Education, 28, 155-171.
43. Wang, W-C., & Su, Y.-H. (2004). Effects of average signed area between two item characteristic curves and test purification procedures on the DIF detection via the Mantel-Haenszel method. Applied Measurement in Education, 17, 113-144.
44. Wang, W.-C., & Yeh, Y.-L. (2003). Effects of anchor item methods on differential item functioning detection with the likelihood ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 479-498.
45. Welch, C., & Hoover, H. D. (1993). Procedures for extending item bias detection techniques to polytomously scored items. Applied Measurement in Education, 6, 1-20.
46. Zwick, R. (1990). When do item response function and Mantel-Haenszel definitions of differential item functioning coincide? Journal of Educational Statistics, 15, 185-197.
47. Zwick, R., Donoghue, J. R., & Grima, A. (1993). Assessment of differential item functioning for performance tasks. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 233-251.