The graded response (GR) and generalized partial credit (GPC) models do not imply that examinees ordered by raw observed score will necessarily be ordered on the expected value of the latent trait (OEL). Factors were manipulated to assess whether increased violations of OEL also produced increased Type I error rates in differential item functioning (DIF) procedures conditioned on the raw score. Shorter tests and greater variance in item slope parameters increased OEL violations for the GR data but not for the GPC data. These same factors, combined with group mean differences between the reference and focal groups, increased the Type I error rate for the observed raw score DIF methods for both the GR and GPC data. A procedure conditioned on the classical test theory latent score estimate instead of the observed score helped reduce the Type I error in some of the conditions but not for the shortest tests.
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.
Bolt, D.M. (2002). A Monte Carlo comparison of parametric and nonparametric polytomous DIF detection methods. Applied Measurement in Education , 15, 113-141.
3.
Chang, H.-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.
4.
Flowers, C.P., Oshima, T.C., & Raju, N.S. (1999). A description and demonstration of the polytomous-DFIT framework. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 309-326.
5.
Grayson, D.A. (1988). Two-group classification in latent trait theory: Scores with monotone likelihood ratio. Psychometrika, 53, 383-392.
6.
Hemker, B.T., Sijtsma, K., Molenaar, I.W., & Junker, B.W. (1996). Polytomous IRT models and monotone likelihood ratio of the total score. Psychometrika, 61, 679-693.
7.
Hemker, B.T., Sijtsma, K., Molenaar, I.W., & Junker, B.W. (1997). Stochastic ordering using the latent trait and the sum score in polytomous IRT models. Psychometrika, 62, 331-347.
8.
Hidalgo-Montesinos, M.D., & Lopez-Pina, J.A. (2002). Two-stage equating in differential item functioning detection under the graded response model with the Raju area measures and the Lord statistics. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 32-44.
9.
Jiang, H., & Stout, W. (1998). Improved Type I error control and reduced estimation bias for DIF detection using SIBTEST. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 23, 291-322.
10.
Kang, T., Cohen, A.S., & Sung, H.J. (2005, April). IRT model selection methods for polytomous items. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council for Measurement in Education, Montreal , Canada.
11.
Kristjansson, E., Aylesworth, R., McDowell, I., & Zumbo, B.D. (2005). A comparison of four methods for detecting differential item functioning in ordered response items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 935-953.
12.
Masters, G.N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149-174.
13.
Maydeu-Oliveres, A., Drasgow, F., & Mead, A.D. (1994). Distinguishing among parametric item response models for polychotomous ordered data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 245-256.
14.
Meredith, W., & Millsap, R.E. (1992). On the misuse of manifest variables in the detection of measurement bias. Psychometrika, 57, 289-311.
15.
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.
16.
Muraki, W. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 159-176.
17.
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.
18.
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplements , 17.
19.
Shealy, R., & Stout, W. (1993). 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.
20.
Sijtsma, K., & Hemker, B.T. (2000). A taxonomy of IRT models for ordering persons and items using simple sum scores. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 25, 391-415.
21.
Su, Y.-H., & Wang, W.-C. (2005). Efficiency of the Mantel, generalized Mantel-Haenszel, and logistic discriminant function analysis methods in detecting differential item functioning for polytomous items. Applied Measurement in Education, 18, 313-350.
22.
Thissen, D., Chen, W.-H., & Bock, D. (2003). MULTILOG 7 [computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software.
23.
Thissen, D., Pommerich, M., Billeaud, K., & Williams, V.S.L. (1995). Item response theory for scores on tests including polytomous items with ordered responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 39-49.
24.
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.
25.
Van der Ark, L.A. (2005). Stochastic ordering of the latent trait by the sum score under various polytomous IRT models. Psychometrika , 70, 283-304.
26.
William Stout Institute for Measurement. ( 2005). Dimensionality-based DIF analysis package: SIBTEST, Poly-SIBTEST, Crossing SIBTEST, DIFSIM, DIFCOMP (Version 1.2) [computer software and manual] . Champaign, IL: Author.
27.
Zwick, R. (1990). When do item response function and Mantel-Haenszel definitions of differential item functioning coincide? Journal of Educational Statistics, 15, 185-197.
28.
Zwick, R., Donoghue, J.R., & Grima, A. (1993). Assessment of differential item functioning for performance tasks. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 233-251.
29.
Zwick, R., Thayer, D., & Mazzeo, J. (1997). Descriptive and inferential procedures for assessing differential item functioning in polytomous items. Applied Measurement in Education, 10, 321-344.
