In this article, an integrated bayesian model for differential item functioning (DIF) analysis is proposed. The model is integrated in the sense of modeling the responses along with the DIF analysis. This approach allows DIF detection and explanation in a simultaneous setup. Previous empirical studies and/or subjective beliefs about the item parameters, including differential functioning behavior, may be conveniently expressed in terms of prior distributions. Values of indicator variables are estimated in the model, indicating which items have DIF and which do not; as a result, the data analyst may not be required to specify an “anchor set” of items that do not exhibit DIF a priori to identify the model. It reduces the iterative procedures that are commonly used for proficiency purification and DIF detection and explanation. Examples demonstrate the efficiency of this method in simulated and real situations.
AlbertJ. H. (1992). Bayesian estimation of normal ogive item responses curves using Gibbs sampling. Journal of Educational Statistics, 17, 251–269.
2.
BéguinA. A.GlasC. A. W. (2001). MCMC estimation and some model-fit analysis of multidimensional IRT models. Psychometrika, 66, 541–562.
3.
BerberogluG. (1995). Differential item functioning (DIF) analysis of computation, word problem and geometry questions across gender and SES groups. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 21, 439–456.
4.
BirnbaumS. (1968). Some latent traits models and their use in inferring an examinee’s ability. In LordF.NovickM. (Eds.), Statistical theories of mental test scores (pp. 397–472). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
5.
ClauserB. E.MazorK. M. (1998). Using statistical procedures to identify differential item functioning test items. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 31–44.
6.
FoxJ. P.GlasC. A. W. (2001). Bayesian estimation of a multilevel IRT model using Gibbs sampling. Psychometrika, 66, 271–288.
7.
GamermanD.LopesH. L. (2006). Markov chain Monte Carlo: Stochastic simulation for Bayesian inference (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis.
8.
GeorgeE. I.McCullochR. E. (1993). Variable selection via Gibbs sampling. Journal of American Statistical Association, 85, 398–409.
9.
GierlM. J.BisanzJ.BisanzG.BoughtonK. (2003). Identifying content and cognitive skills that produce gender differences in mathematics: A demonstration of the DIF analysis framework. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40, 281–306.
10.
HansonB. A. (1998). Uniform DIF and DIF defined by differences in item response functions. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 23, 244–253.
11.
HollandP. W.ThayerD. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In WainerH.BraunH. (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129–145). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12.
LongfordN. T.HollandP. W.ThayerD. T. (1993). Stability of the MH D-DIF statistics across populations. In HollandP. W.WainerH. (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 171–196). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13.
LordF. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14.
MayH. (2006). A multilevel Bayesian item response theory method for scaling socioeconomic status in international studies of education. Journal of Educational Behavioral Statistics, 31, 63–79.
15.
O’NeilK. A.McPeekW. M. (1993). Item and test characteristics that are associated with differential item functioning. In HollandP. W.WainerH. (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 255–276). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16.
PatzR. J.JunkerB. W. (1999a). A straightforward approach to Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for item response models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 146–178.
17.
PatzR. J.JunkerB. W. (1999b). Applications and extensions of MCMC in IRT. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 342–366.
18.
RogersH. J.SwaminathanH. (2000). Identification of factors that contribute to DIF: A hierarchical modeling approach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
19.
SamejimaF. (1997). Graded response model. In van der LindenW. J.HambletonR. K. (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 85–100). New York: Springer Verlag.
20.
SchmittA. P.BleisteinC. A. (1987). Factors affecting differential item functioning for black examinees on scholastic aptitude test analogy items (ETS RR-87-23). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
21.
SchmittA. P.HollandP. W.DoransN. J. (1993). Evaluating hypotheses about differential item functioning. In HollandP. W.WainerH. (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 281–316). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22.
ShealyR. T.StoutW. F. (1993). An item response theory model for test bias and differential test functioning. In HollandP. W.WainerH. (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 197–239). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23.
SinharayS.DoransN. J.GrantM. C.BlewE. O.KnorrC. M. (2006). Using past data to enhance small-sample DIF estimation: A Bayesian approach (ETS RR-06-09). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
24.
SwaminathanH.RogersH. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 361–370.
25.
SwansonD. B.ClauserB. E.CaseS. M.NungesterR. J.FeathermanC. (2002). Analysis of differential item functioning (DIF) using hierarchical logistic regression models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 27, 53–75.
26.
ThissenD. (2001). IRTLRDIF v.2.0.b: Software for the computation of the statistics involved in item response theory Likelihood-Ratio Tests for differential item functioning. Retrieved August 29, 2007, from http://www.unc.edu/∼dthissen/dl.html
27.
ThissenD.SteinbergL.WainerH. (1993). Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. In HollandP. W.WainerH. (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 67–114). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28.
WainerH.BradlowE. T.WangX. (2007). Testlet response theory, New York: Cambridge University Press.
29.
WangX.BradlowE. T.WainerH.MullerE. S. (2008). A Bayesian method for studying DIF: A cautionary tale filled with surprises and delights. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 33(3) 363–384.
30.
WangW.-C.SuY.-H. (2004). Effects of average signed area between two item characteristics curves and test purification procedures on the DIF detection via the Mantel-Haenszel method. Applied Measurement in Education, 17, 113–144.
31.
WangW.-C.YehY.-L. (2003). Effects of anchor item methods on differential item functioning detection with the likelihood ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 1–20.
32.
ZimowskiM. F.MurakiE.MislevyR. J.BockR. D. (1996). BILOG-MG: Multiple Group IRT Analysis and test maintenance for binary items. Chicago: Scientific Software International Inc.
33.
ZwickR.ThayerD. T. (2002). Application of an empirical Bayes enhancement of Mantel–Haenszel DIF analysis to a computerized adaptive test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 57–76.
34.
ZwickR.ThayerD. T.LewisC. (1999). An empirical Bayes approach to Mantel–Haenszel DIF analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 1–28.
35.
ZwickR.ThayerD. T.LewisC. (2000). Using loss functions for DIF detection: An empirical Bayes approach. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 25, 225–247.
