The definitions, methods, and interpretations of differential item functioning are extended to the transpose of the usual person-item matrices. The primary purpose is to enhance diagnostic assessment in which individual differences in scores between content domains are clarified by conditioning the scores on item difficulty. Three examples are used to illustrate this approach with data from the mathematics section of the California Achievement Test using the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. The term differential person functioning is suggested.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Brunk, H. D. (1981). Estimation of stimulus-response curves by Bayesian least squares. Psychometrika, 46(2), 115-128.
2.
Camilli, G. , & Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
Clauser, B. , Mazor, K. M., & Hambleton, R. K. (1994). The effects of score group width on the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31(1), 67-78.
4.
De Champlain, A. , Macmillan, M. K., Margolis, M., & Klass, D. J. (1998, April). Assessing differential rater functioning for a performance-based examination using standardized examinees. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
5.
Dorans, N. J. (1989). Two new approaches to assessing differential item functioning: Standardization and the Mantel-Haenszel method. Applied Measurement in Education, 2(3), 217-233.
6.
Dorans, N. J. , & Holland, P. W. (1993). DIF detection and description: Mantel-Haenszel and standardization. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 35-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Donoghue, J. R. , & Allen, N. L. (1993). Thin versus thick matching in the Mantel-Haenszel procedure for detecting DIF. Journal of Educational Statistics, 18(2), 131-154.
8.
Durovic, J. J. (1975). Definitions of test bias: A taxonomy and an illustration of an alternate model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Albany.
9.
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.
10.
Jaeger, R. M. (1988). Use and effect of caution indices in detecting aberrant patterns of standard-setting judgments. Applied Measurement in Education, 1(1), 17-31.
11.
Lumsden, J. (1978). Tests are perfectly reliable. British Journal of Mathematical Statistics in Psychology, 31, 19-26.
12.
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.
13.
Martin, R. (1989). The Lead Teacher Project: K-6 mathematics and science elementary teacher enhancement (NSF Grant No. 91-47392). Athens: Ohio University.
14.
Meijer, R. R. (1996). Person-fit research: An introduction. Applied Measurement in Education, 9(1), 3-8.
15.
Nohoon, K. , Davenport, E. C., & Davison, M. L. (1998, April). A comparative study of observed score approaches and purification procedures for detecting differential item functioning.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.
16.
Oshima, T. C. , & Raju, N. S. (1997, March). Differential functioning of items and tests (DFIT) and differential person functioning for a test with a cutoff score. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago.
17.
Parshall, C. G. , & Miller, T. R. (1995). Exact versus asymptotic Mantel-Haenszel DIF statistics: A comparison of performance under small sample conditions. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32(3), 302-316.
18.
Raju, N. S. , Bode, R. K., & Larsen, V. S. (1989). An empirical assessment of the Mantel-Haenszel statistic for studying differential item performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 2(1), 1-13.
19.
Reise, S. P. , & Flannery, W. P. (1996). Assessing person-fiton measures of typical performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 9(1), 9-26.
20.
Rogers, H. J. , & Swaminathan, H. (1993). A comparison of logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17(2), 105-116.
21.
Swaminathan, H. , & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(4), 361-370.
22.
Uttaro, T. , & Millsap, R. E. (1994). Factors influencing the Mantel-Haenszel procedure in the detection of differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18(1), 15-25.
