Possible underlying causes of item bias were exam ined using a simulation procedure. Data sets were generated to conform to specified factor structures and mean factor scores. Comparisons between the item pa rameters of various data sets were made with one data set representing the "majority" group and another data set representing the "minority" group. Results indicated that items that required a secondary ability, on which two groups differed in mean level, were generally more biased than those items that do not re quire a secondary ability. Items with different factor structures in two groups were not consistently identi fied as more biased than those having similar factor structures. A substantial amount of agreement was found among the bias indices used in the study.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Angoff, W.H. (1982). Use of difficulty and discrimination indices for detecting item bias. In R. A. Berk (Ed.), Handbook of methods for detecting test bias (pp. 96-116). Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press.
2.
Devine, P.J., & Raju, N.S. (1982). Extent of overlap among four item bias methods . Education and Psychological Measurement, 42, 1049-1066.
3.
Drasgow, F. (1984). Scrutinizing psychological tests: Measurement equivalence and equivalent relations with external variables are the central issues. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 134-135.
4.
Drasgow, F., & Parsons, C.K. (1983). Application of unidimensional item response theory models to multidimensional data. Applied Psychological Measurement , 7, 189-199.
5.
Gael, S., Grant, D.L., & Ritchie, R.J. (1975). Employment test validation for minority and nonminority operators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 411-419.
Ironson, G.H. (1982). Use of chi-square and latent trait approaches for detecting item bias. In R. A. Berk (Ed.), Handbook of methods for detecting test bias (pp. 117-160). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
8.
Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1979). Advances in factor analysis and structural equation models. Cam-bridge MA: Abt Books .
9.
Linn, R.L., Levine, M.V., Hastings, C.N., & War-drop, J.L. (1980). An investigation of item bias in a test of reading comprehension (Report No. 163). Urbana-Champaign IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
10.
Linn, R.L., Levine, M.V., Hastings, C.N., & War-drop, J.L. (1981). Item bias in a test of reading comprehension. Applied Psychological Measurement, 5, 159-163.
11.
Lord, F.M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
Marco, G.L. (1977). Item characteristics curve solutions to three intractable testing problems. Journal of Educational Measurement , 14, 139-160.
13.
Reckase, M.D. (1979). Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: Results and implications. Journal of Educational Statistics , 4, 207-230.
14.
Rudner, L.M., Getson, P.R., & Knight, D.L. (1980). A monte carlo comparison of seven biased item detection techniques. Journal of Educational Measurement, 17, 1-10.
15.
Shepherd, L., Camilli, G., & Averill, M. (1981). Comparison of procedures for detecting test-item bias with both internal and external ability criteria. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 317-375.
16.
Shepherd, L., Camilli, G., & Williams, D.M. (1984). Accounting for statistical artifacts in item bias research. Journal of Educational Statistics , 9, 93-128.
17.
Warm, T.A. (1978). A primer of item response theory (Technical Report No. 941078). Washington DC: U.S. Coast Guard Institute.
18.
Wingersky, M.S. (1983). LOGIST: A program for computing maximum likelihood procedures for logistic test models. In R. K. Hambleton (Ed.), Applications of item response theory (pp. 45-56). Vancouver, Canada : Educational Research Institute of British Columbia.
