Comparison of Methods Used in Detection of DIF in Cognitive Diagnostic Models with Traditional Methods: Applications in TIMSS 2011

被引:2
|
作者
Eren, Busra [1 ]
Gunduz, Tuba [2 ]
Tan, Seref
机构
[1] Natl Def Univ, Dept Educ Sci, Balikesir, Turkiye
[2] Mugla Sitki Kocman Univ, Fac Educ, Mugla, Turkiye
关键词
Cognitive diagnosis models; large scale assessment; differential item functioning; WALD TEST; MATHEMATICS;
D O I
10.21031/epod.1218144
中图分类号
G44 [教育心理学];
学科分类号
0402 ; 040202 ;
摘要
This study aims to compare the Wald test and likelihood ratio test (LRT) approaches with Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT) based differential item functioning (DIF) detection methods in the context of cognitive diagnostic models (CDMs), using the TIMSS 2011 dataset as a retrofitting study. CDMs, which have a significant potential when determining the DIF and their contribution to validity, can give confidence under the strong methodological background condition is met. Therefore, it is hoped that this study will contribute to the literature to ensure the correct usage of CDMs and evaluate the compatibility of these new approaches with traditional methods. According to the analysis results, thirty-one items showed differences between the cognitive diagnosis assessments and the traditional methods. The item with the largest DIF was found in the Raju Unsigned Area Measures technique in IRT, whereas the item with the lowest DIF was found in the Wald test technique developed for CDMs. In general, the analyses show that methods not based on CDMs detect more items with DIF, but the Wald test and LRT methods based on CDMs detect fewer items with DIF. This study conducted DIF analyses to determine the test's psychometric properties within the framework of CDMs rather than the source of the bias. Researchers can take the study one step further and make more specific assessments about the items' bias regarding the test structure, test scope, and subgroups. In addition, DIF analyses in this study were carried out using only the gender variable, and researchers can use different variables to conduct studies specific to their purpose.
引用
收藏
页码:76 / 94
页数:19
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of DIF Detection Methods
    Ptukhin, Yevgeniy
    Sheng, Yanyan
    QUANTITATIVE PSYCHOLOGY, IMPS 2023, 2024, 452 : 121 - 132
  • [2] A Comparison of Differential Item Functioning Detection Methods in Cognitive Diagnostic Models
    Liu, Yanlou
    Yin, Hao
    Xin, Tao
    Shao, Laicheng
    Yuan, Lu
    FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2019, 10
  • [3] Editorial: Cognitive Diagnostic Models: Methods for Practical Applications
    Xin, Tao
    Wang, Chun
    Chen, Ping
    Liu, Yanlou
    FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2022, 13
  • [4] Comparison of Formant Detection Methods Used in Speech Processing Applications
    Belean, Bogdan
    PROCESSES IN ISOTOPES AND MOLECULES (PIM 2013), 2013, 1565 : 85 - 89
  • [5] Comparison of methods used for dental caries diagnostic methods.
    Pereira, AC
    Eggertson, HB
    Martinez-Mier, A
    Gonzalez-Cabezas, C
    Eckert, GJ
    Zero, D
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 2002, 81 : B155 - B155
  • [6] COMPARISON OF THE DIAGNOSTIC METHODS USED IN MAXILLOFACIAL TRAUMA
    FINKLE, DR
    RINGLER, SL
    LUTTENTON, CR
    BEERNINK, JH
    PETERSON, NT
    DEAN, RE
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 1985, 75 (01) : 32 - 38
  • [7] A Monte Carlo comparison of parametric and nonparametric polytomous DIF detection methods
    Bolt, DM
    APPLIED MEASUREMENT IN EDUCATION, 2002, 15 (02) : 113 - 141
  • [8] Comparison of diagnostic Methods for the Detection of Angiostrongylosis
    Mucha, Daniela
    TIERAERZTLICHE PRAXIS AUSGABE KLEINTIERE HEIMTIERE, 2018, 46 (04):
  • [9] Comparison among cognitive diagnostic models for the TIMSS 2007 fourth grade mathematics assessment
    Yamaguchi, Kazuhiro
    Okada, Kensuke
    PLOS ONE, 2018, 13 (02):
  • [10] Detecting DIF With Ideal Point Models A Comparison of Area and Parameter Difference Methods
    Seybert, Jacob
    Stark, Stephen
    Chernyshenko, Oleksandr S.
    APPLIED PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 2014, 38 (02) : 151 - 165