The closed-interval signed area (CSA) and closed- moderate to large differences between the groups than interval unsigned area (CUA) statistics were studied by the CUA. However, the effect of the pseudo-guessing monte carlo simulation to detect differential item func- parameter varied depending on item discriminations. tioning when the reference and focal groups had differ- Index terms: closed-interval measures, differential item ent parameter distributions. When the-pseudo-guessing functioning, item response theory, monte carlo simula- parameter was varied, the CSA was better able to detect tion, signed area measures, unsigned area measures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Angoff, W.H. (1993). Perspectives on differential item functioning . In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 3-23). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
2.
Bock, R.D. (1993). Different DIFs: Comment on the papers read by Neil Dorans and David Thissen. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential itemfunctioning (pp. 115-122). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
Burton, E., & Burton, N.W. (1993). The effects of item screening on test scores and test characteristics. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 321-335). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
4.
Camilli, G. (1993). The case against item bias detection techniques based on internal criteria: Do item bias procedures obscure test fairness issues? In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 397-413). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
5.
Cohen, A.S., Kim, S.-H., & Subkoviak, M.J. (1991). Influence of prior distributions on detection of DIF. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 49-59.
6.
Cole, N.S. (1993). History and development of DIF. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 25-29). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
Donoghue, J.R., Holland, P.W., & Thayer, D.T. (1993). A monte-carlo study of factors that affect the Mantel-Haenszel and standardization measures of differential item functioning . In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 137-166). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
8.
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: Erlbaum .
9.
Hambleton, R.K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff .
10.
Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (Eds.) (1993). Differential item functioning . Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Ironson, G.H., & Subkoviak, M.J. (1979). A comparison of several methods of assessing item bias. Journal of Educational Measurement , 16, 209-225.
13.
Kim, S.-H., & Cohen, A.S. (1991). A comparison of two area measures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement , 15, 269-278.
14.
Kim, S.-H., & Cohen, A.S. (1992). IRTDIF: A computer program for IRT differential item functioning analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement , 16, 158.
15.
Klockars, A.J., & Sax, G. (1986). Multiple comparisons. Newbury Park CA: Sage.
16.
Linn, R.L. (1993). The use of DIF statistics: A discussion of current practice and future implications. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 349-364). Hillsdale NJ : Erlbaum.
17.
Linn, R.L., & Levine, M.V. (1981). Item bias in a test of reading comprehension. Applied Psychological Measurement, 5, 159-173.
18.
Lord, F.M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
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.
Osterlind, S.J. (1983). Test item bias. Beverly Hills : Sage.
22.
Press, W.H., Flannery, B.P., Teukoisky, S.A., & Vetterling. W.T. (1992). Numerical recipes in C: The art of scientific computing (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Raju, N.S. (1988). The area between two item characteristic curves . Psychometrika, 53, 495-502.
24.
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.
25.
Shealy, R., & Stout, W. (1993a). 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.
26.
Shealy, R.T., & Stout, W.F. (1993b). An IRT model for test bias and differential test functioning. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 197-239). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1993). Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 67-113). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
28.
Wainer, H. (1993). Model-based standardized measurement of an item's differential impact. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 123-135). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
29.
Zieky, M. (1993). Practical questions in the use of DIF statistics in test development. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 337-347). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
