Measurement invariance in the partial credit model (PCM) can be conceptualized in several different but compatible ways. In this article the authors distinguish between three forms of measurement invariance in the PCM: step invariance, item invariance, and threshold invariance. Approaches for modeling these three forms of invariance are proposed, and the mathematical relationship between the three forms is established. Parametric and contingency table approaches for assessing the three forms of invariance are presented, and the application of the parametric and contingency table approaches to a real data set is described. The invariance effect estimates observed for the parametric and contingency table approaches are consistent with the theoretical equivalence of the two approaches.
Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories . Psychometrika, 43, 561-573.
2.
Andrich, D. (1988). Rasch models for measurement. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3.
Bolt, D. (2002). A Monte Carlo comparison of parametric and nonparametric polytomous DIF detection methods. Applied Measurement in Education , 15, 113-141.
4.
Bolt, D.M., Hare, R.D., Vitale, J.E., & Newman, J.P. (2004). A multigroup item response theory analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Psychological Assessment , 16, 155-168.
5.
Byrne, B.M., & Watkins, D. (2003). The issue of invariance revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 155-175.
6.
Camilli, G. (1992). A conceptual analysis of differential item functioning in terms of a multidimensional item response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 129-147.
7.
Camilli, G., & Congdon, P. (1999). Application of a method of estimating DIF for polytomous test items. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 323-341.
8.
Clauser, B.E., & Mazor, K.M. (1998). Using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning test items. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(1), 31-44.
9.
Cox, D.R. (1958). The regression analysis of binary sequences. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 20, 215-232.
10.
Draba, R.E. (1977). The identification and interpretation of item bias (Research Memorandum No. 25). Chicago: Statistical Laboratory, Department of Education, University of Chicago.
11.
Embretson, S.E., & Reise, S.P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
Feltz, D.L., Chase, M.A., Moritz, S.E., & Sullivan, P.J. (1999). A conceptual model of coaching efficacy: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 765-776.
13.
Fischer, G.H. (1995). Derivations of the Rasch model. In G. H. Fischer & I. W. Molenaar (Eds.), Rasch models: Foundations, recent developments, and applications (pp. 15-38). New York: Springer-Verlag .
14.
Fischer, G. H., & Molenaar, I. W. (Eds.). (1995). Rasch models: Foundations, recent developments, and applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.
15.
Gelin, M.N., & Zumbo, B.D. (2003). Differential item functioning results may change depending on how an item is scored: An illustration with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 63, 65-74.
16.
Hauck, W.W. (1979). The large sample variance of the Mantel-Haenszel estimator of a common odds ratio. Biometrics, 35, 817-819.
17.
Hemker, B.T., van der Ark, L.A., & Sijtsma, K. (2001). On measurement properties of continuation ratio models. Psychometrika, 66, 487-506.
18.
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.
19.
Horn, T.S. (2002). Coaching effectiveness in the sports domain. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 309-354). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
20.
Linacre, J.M. (2005). A user's guide to WINSTEPS/MINISTEP Rasch-model computer programs (Version 3.55) [Computer manual]. Chicago : MESA.
21.
Lord, F.M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
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.
23.
Masters, G.N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149, 174.
24.
Michell, J. (1990). An introduction to the logic of psychological measurement. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
Millsap, R.E. (2005). Four unresolved problems in studies of factorial invariance. In A. Maydeu-Olivares & J. J. McArdle (Eds.), Contemporary psychometrics (pp. 153-171). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
Millsap, R.E., & Meredith, W. (1992). Inferential conditions in the statistical detection of measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 389-402.
27.
Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 159-176.
28.
Myers, N.D., Feltz, D.L., & Wolfe, E.W. (in press). A confirmatory study of rating scale category effectiveness for the Coaching Efficacy Scale. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport .
29.
Myers, N.D., Wolfe, E.W., Feltz, D.L., & Penfield, R.D. (2006). Identifying differential item functioning of rating scale items with the Rasch model: An introduction and an application. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 10, 215-240.
Penfield, R.D. (2006, April). A nonparametric method for assessing differential step functioning in polytomous items. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education , San Francisco.
32.
Penfield, R.D. (2007a). An approach for categorizing DIF in polytomous items. Applied Measurement in Education, 20, 335-355.
33.
Penfield, R.D. (2007b). Assessing differential step functioning in polytomous items using a common odds ratio estimator. Journal of Educational Measurement, 44, 187-210.
34.
Penfield, R.D., & Camilli, G. (2007). Differential item functioning and item bias. In S. Sinharay & C. R. Rao (Eds.), Handbook of statistics: Vol. 26. Psychometrics (pp. 125-167). New York: Elsevier .
35.
Phillips, A., & Holland, P.W. (1987). Estimators of the variance of the Mantel-Haenszel log-odds-ratio estimate. Biometrics, 43, 425-431.
36.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danmarks Paedogogiske Institut.
37.
Reise, S.P., & Yu, J. (1990). Parameter recovery in the graded response model using MULTILOG. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 133-144.
38.
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometric Monograph, 17.
39.
Samejima, F. (1972). A general model for free response data. Psychometric Monograph, 18.
40.
Shealy, R., & Stout, W. (1993). An item response theory model for test bias and differential test functioning. In P. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 197-240). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
41.
Smith, E. V., & Smith, R. M. (Eds.). (2004). Introduction to Rasch measurement. Maple Grove, MN: JAM .
42.
van der Linden, W.J., & Hambleton, R.K. (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer .
43.
Wang, W.C. (2000). Modeling effects of differential item functioning in polytomous items. Journal of Applied Measurement, 1, 63-82.
Yin, P., & Fan, X. (2003). Assessing the factor structure invariance of self-concept measurement across ethnic and gender groups: Findings from a national sample . Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 296-318.
