The multiple indicators, multiple causes (MIMIC) method with a pure short anchor was proposed to detect differential item functioning (DIF). A simulation study showed that the MIMIC method with an anchor of 1, 2, 4, or 10 DIF-free items yielded a well-controlled Type I error rate even when such tests contained as many as 40% DIF items. In general, a longer anchor increased the power of DIF detection, and a 4-item anchor was long enough to yield a high power of DIF detection. An iterative MIMIC procedure was proposed to locate a set of DIF-free items to function as a pure anchor so that the MIMIC method could proceed properly. In another simulation study, it was found that this iterative procedure yielded a perfect (or nearly perfect) rate of accuracy in locating a set of up to 4 DIF-free items.
Ackerman, T.A. (1992). A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact, and item validity from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 67-91.
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. 397-424). Reading, MA : Addison-Wesley.
3.
Camilli, G. (1993). The case against item bias techniques based on internal criteria: Do item bias procedures obscure test fairness issues? The use of differential item functioning statistics: A discussion of current practice and future implications. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 397-413). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
Candell, G.L., & Drasgow, F. (1988). An iterative procedure for linking metrics and assessing item bias in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 253-260.
5.
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.
6.
Cohen, A.S., Kim, S.- H., & Wollack, J.A. (1996). An investigation of the likelihood ratio test for detection of differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 15-26.
Dodeen, H., & Johanson, G. (2003). An analysis of sex-related differential item functioning in attitude assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 129-134.
9.
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.
10.
Finch, H. (2005). The MIMIC model as a method for detecting DIF: Comparison with Mantel-Haenszel, SIBTEST, and the IRT likelihood ratio. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 278-295.
11.
Fleishman, J.A., Spector, W.D., & Altman, B.M. (2002). Impact of differential item functioning on age and gender differences in functional disability. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 57B(5), S275-S283.
12.
French, B.F., & Maller, S.J. (2007). Iterative purification and effect size use with logistic regression for differential item functioning detection. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 373-393.
13.
Gallo, J.J., Anthony, J.C., & Muthén, B.O. (1994). Age differences in the symptoms of depression: A latent trait analysis. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 49, 251-264.
14.
Glöckner-Rist, A., & Hoitjink, H. (2003). The best of both worlds: Factor analysis of dichotomous data using item response theory and structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 544-565.
15.
Hidalgo-Montesinos, M.D., & Gómez-Benito, J. (2003). Test purification and the evaluation of differential item functioning with multinomial logistic regression. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19, 1-11.
16.
Holland, W.P., & 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.
17.
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.
18.
Lautenschlager, G.J., Flaherty, V.L., & Park, D. (1994). IRT differential item functioning: An examination of ability scale purifications. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 21-31.
19.
Levine, D.W., Bowen, D.J., Kaplan, R.M., Kripke, D.F., Naughton, M.J., & Shumaker, S.A. (2003). Factor structure and measurement invariance of the Women's Health Initiative Insomnia Rating Scale. Psychological Assessment, 15, 123-136.
Lord, F.M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
MacIntosh, R., & Hashim, S. (2003). Variance estimation for converting MIMIC model parameters to IRT parameters in DIF analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 372-379.
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.
25.
Muthén, B.O. (1985). A method for studying the homogeneity of test items with respect to other relevant variables. Journal of Educational Statistics, 10, 121-132.
26.
Muthén, B.O. (1988). Some uses of structural equation modeling in validity studies: Extending IRT to external variables. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 213-238). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
Muthén, B.O., Kao, C.F., & Burstein, L. (1991). Instructionally sensitive psychometrics: Application of a new IRT-based detection technique to mathematics achievement test items . Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 1-22.
28.
Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (2004). Mplus user's guide. Los Angeles : Author.
29.
Navas-Ara, M.J., & Gómez-Benito, J. (2002). Effects of ability scale purification on identification of DIF. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 9-15.
30.
Oort, F.J. (1998). Simulation study of item bias detection with restricted factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 5, 107-124.
31.
Park, D.G., & Lautenschlager, G.J. (1990). Improving IRT item bias detection with iterative linking and ability scale purification. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 163-173.
32.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danmarks Paedogogische Institut.
33.
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.
Takane, Y., & de Leeuw, J. (1987). On the relationship between item response theory and factor analysis of discretized variables. Psychometrika , 52, 393-408.
36.
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.
37.
Wainer, H., Sireci, S., & Thissen, D. (1991). Differential testlet functioning: Definitions and detection. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 197-219.
38.
Wang, W.- C. (2004). Effects of anchor item methods on the detection of differential item functioning within the family of Rasch models. Journal of Experimental Education, 72, 221-261.
39.
Wang, W.-C., Shih, C.L., & Yang, C.-C. (in press). The MIMIC method with scale purification procedure for detecting differential item functioning. Educational and Psychological Measurement.
40.
Wang, W.-C., Shih, C.-L., & Su, Y.-H. (2007). Establishing a common metric over groups for the assessment of differential item functioning. Submitted for publication.
41.
Wang, W.-C., & Su, Y.-H. (2004a). 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.
42.
Wang, W.-C., & Su, Y.-H. (2004b). Factors influencing the Mantel and generalized Mantel-Haenszel methods for the assessment of differential item functioning in polytomous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28, 450-480.
43.
Wang, W.-C., & Wilson, M.R. (2005). Assessment of differential item functioning in testlet-based items using the Rasch testlet model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 549-576.
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.J., & Miller, T.R. (1995). Assessing differential item functioning in direct writing assessments: Problems and an example. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 163-178.
46.
Wright, B.D., & Stone, M.H. (1979). Best test design. Chicago: MESA Press.
47.
Young, E.L., & Sudweeks, R.R. (2005). Gender differential item functioning in the Multidimensional Self Concept Scale with a sample of early adolescent students. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 38, 29-44.
