Iterative purification and effect size use with logistic regression for differential item functioning detection

被引:75
作者
French, Brian F. [1 ]
Maller, Susan J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Purdue Univ, Sch Educ, W Lafayette, IN 47907 USA
关键词
differential item functioning; logistic regression analysis; effect size; purification; ABILITY SCALE PURIFICATION; MANTEL-HAENSZEL PROCEDURES; RESPONSE THEORY; BIAS DETECTION; SAMPLE-SIZE; WISC-III; I ERROR; DIF; IDENTIFICATION; PERFORMANCE;
D O I
10.1177/0013164406294781
中图分类号
G44 [教育心理学];
学科分类号
0402 ; 040202 ;
摘要
Two unresolved implementation issues with logistic regression (LR) for differential item functioning (DIF) detection include ability purification and effect size use. Purification is suggested to control inaccuracies in DIF detection as a result of DIF items in the ability estimate. Additionally, effect size use may be beneficial in controlling Type I error rates. The effectiveness of such controls, especially used in combination, requires evaluation. Detection errors were evaluated through simulation across iterative purification and no purification procedures with and without the use of an effect size criterion. Sample size, DIF magnitude and percentage, and ability differences were manipulated. Purification was beneficial under certain conditions, although overall power and Type I error rates did not substantially improve. The LR statistical test without purification performed as well as other classification criteria and may be the practical choice for many situations. Continued evaluation of the effect size guidelines and purification are discussed.
引用
收藏
页码:373 / 393
页数:21
相关论文
共 45 条
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1988, TEST VALIDITY
[3]  
Camilli G., 1994, METHODS IDENTIFYING
[4]   AN ITERATIVE PROCEDURE FOR LINKING METRICS AND ASSESSING ITEM BIAS IN ITEM RESPONSE THEORY [J].
CANDELL, GL ;
DRASGOW, F .
APPLIED PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1988, 12 (03) :253-260
[5]  
Clauser B.E., 1998, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, V17, P31, DOI [DOI 10.1111/J.1745-3992.1998.TB00619.X, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1998.tb00619.x]
[6]  
Clauser B.E., 1993, Applied Measurement in Education, V6, P269, DOI [10.1207/s15324818ame0604_2, DOI 10.1207/S15324818AME0604_2]
[7]   A COMPARISON OF LORD CHI(2) AND RAJU AREA MEASURES IN DETECTION OF DIF [J].
COHEN, AS ;
KIM, SH .
APPLIED PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1993, 17 (01) :39-52
[8]  
Fidalgo A.M., 2000, Methods of Psychological Research Online, V5, P43
[9]  
Glass G.V., 1996, STAT METHODS ED PSYC
[10]  
Haladyna T.M., 2004, EDUC MEAS-ISSUES PRA, V23, P17, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1745-3992.2004.TB00149.X