Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Agresti, A. (1990). Categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley.
Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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 and H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential Item Functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dorans, N. J., & Holland, P. W. (1993). DIF detection and description: Mantel-Haenszel and standardization. In P. W. Holland and H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning, (pp. 35–66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.
Fischer, G.H. (1995). Some neglected problems in IRT. Psychometrika, 60, 459–487.
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (1995). Bayesian data analysis. London: Chapman & Hall.
Holland, P.W., & Thayer, D.T.(1985) An alternative definition of the ETS delta scale of item difficulty. (ETS Research Report No. 85-43). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
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: Erlbaum.
Holland, P.W., & Zwick, R. (1991). A simulation study of some simple approaches to the study of DIF for CAT&’s. (Internal memorandum). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Holland, P.W., & Wainer, H. (Eds.) Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Kelley, T. L. (1923). Statistical methods. New York: Macmillan.
Krass, I., & Segall, D. (1998). Differential item functioning and on-line item calibration. (Draft report). Monterey, CA: Defense Manpower Data Center.
Legg, S.M., & Buhr, D.C. (1992). Computerized adaptive testing with different groups. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11, 23–27.
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.
Miller, T.R. (1992, April). Practical considerations for conducting studies of differential item functioning in a CAT environment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Miller, T.R., & Fan, M. (1998, April). Assessing DIF in high dimensional CATs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego.
Nandakumar, R. & Roussos, L. (in press). CATSIB: A modified SIBTEST procedure to detect differential item functioning in computerized adaptive tests. (Research report) Newtown, PA: Law School Admission Council.
Pashley, P. J. (1997). Computerized LSAT research agenda: Spring 1997 update. (LSAC report). Newtown, PA: Law School Admission Council.
Phillips, A. & Holland, P.W. (1987). Estimation of the variance of the Mantel-Haenszel log-odds-ratio estimate. Biometrics, 43, 425–431.
Pommerich, M., Spray, J.A., & Parshall, C.G. (1995). An analytical evaluation of two common-odds ratios as population indicators of DIF. (ACT Report 95-1). Iowa City: American College Testing Program.
Powers, D. E., & O’Neill, K. (1993). Inexperienced and anxious computer users: Coping with a computer-administered test of academic skills. Educational Assessment, 1, 153–173.
Robins, J., Breslow, N., & Greenland, S. (1986). Estimators of the Mantel-Haenszel variance consistent in both sparse data and large-strata limiting models. Biometrics, 42, 311–323.
Roussos, L. (1996, June). A type I error rate study of a modified SIBTEST DIF procedure with potential application to computerized-adaptive tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Banff, Alberta, Canada.
Roussos, L., & Nandakumar, R. (1998, June). Kernel-smoothed CATSIB. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Urbana-Champaign, IL.
Roussos, L., & Stout, W.F. (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.
Schaeffer, G., Reese, C., Steffen, M., McKinley, R. L., & Mills, C. N. (1993). Field test of a computer-based GRE general test. (ETS Research Report No. RR 93-07). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Shealy, R., & Stout, W.F. (1993a). A model-based 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.
Shealy, R., & Stout, W.F. (1993b). An item response theory model for test bias and differential test functioning. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 197–239). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Steinberg, L., Thissen, D, & Wainer, H. (1990). Validity. In H. Wainer (Ed.), Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (pp. 187–231). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stocking, M.L., Jirele, T., Lewis, C., & Swanson, L. (1998). Moderating possibly irrelevant multiple mean score differences on a test of mathematical reasoning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 199–222.
Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1993). Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 67–113). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Way, W. D. (1994). A simulation study of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure for detecting DIF for the NCLEX using CAT. (Internal technical report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. (ETS Policy Information Center report) Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Wingersky, M. S., Patrick, R., & Lord, F. M. (1988). LOGIST user’s guide: LOGIST Version 6.00. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Zieky, M. (1993). Practical questions in the use of DIF statistics in test development. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 337–347). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zwick, R. (1990). When do item response function and Mantel-Haenszel definitions of differential item functioning coincide? Journal of Educational Statistics, 15, 185–197.
Zwick, R. (1992). Application of Mantel’s chi-square test to the analysis of differential item functioning for functioning for ordinal items. (Technical memorandum). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Zwick, R. (1997). The effect of adaptive administration on the variability of the Mantel-Haenszel measure of differential item functioning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 412–421.
Zwick, R., & Thayer, D. T. (1996). Evaluating the magnitude of differential item functioning in polytomous items. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 21, 187–201.
Zwick, R., & Thayer, D. T. (in press). Application of an empirical Bayes enhancement of Mantel-Haenszel DIF analysis to computer-adaptive tests. Applied Psychological Measurement.
Zwick, R., Thayer, D. T., & Lewis, C. (1997) An Investigation of the Validity of an Empirical Bayes Approach to Mantel-Haenszel DIF Analysis. (ETS Research Report No. 97-21). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Zwick, R., Thayer, D. T., & Lewis, C. (1999). An empirical Baye approach to Mantel-Haenszel DIF analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 1–28.
Zwick, R., Thayer, D.T., & Lewis, C. (2000). Using loss functions for DIF detection: An empirical Bayes approach. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 25, 225–247.
Zwick, R., Thayer, D.T., & Mazzeo, J. (1997). Descriptive and inferential procedures for assessing DIF in polytomous items. Applied Measurement in Education, 10, 321–344.
Zwick, R., Thayer, D.T., & Wingersky, M. (1993). A simulation study of methods for assessing differential item functioning in computer-adaptive tests. (ETS Research Report 93-11). Princeton, NJ: Educationl Testing Service.
Zwick, R., Thayer, D. T., & Wingersky, M. (1994a) A simulation study of methods for assessing differential item functioning in computerized adaptive tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 121–140.
Zwick, R., Thayer, D.T., & Wingersky, M. (1995). Effect of Rasch calibration on ability and DIF estimation in computer-adaptive tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 341–363.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zwick, R. (2000). The Assessment of Differential Item Functioning in Comput Adaptive Tests. In: van der Linden, W.J., Glas, G.A. (eds) Computerized Adaptive Testing: Theory and Practice. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47531-6_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47531-6_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-6425-2
Online ISBN: 978-0-306-47531-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive