Using logistic regression and the Mantel-Haenszel with multiple ability estimates to detect differential item functioning.

Logistic regression has recently been advanced as a viable procedure for detecting differential item functioning (DIF). One of the advantages of this procedure is the considerable flexibility it offers in the specification of the regression equation. This article describes incorporating two ability estimates into a single regression analysis, with the result that substantially fewer items exhibit DIF. A comparable analysis is conducted using the Mantel-Haenszel with similar results. It is argued that by simultaneously conditioning on two relevant ability estimates, more accurate matching of examinees in the reference and focal groups is obtained, and thus multidimensional item impact is not mistakenly identified as DIF.

[1]  H. Swaminathan,et al.  Detecting Differential Item Functioning Using Logistic Regression Procedures , 1990 .

[2]  N. Dorans.  Two New Approaches to Assessing Differential Item Functioning: Standardization and the Mantel--Haenszel Method , 1989 .

[3]  R. Nandakumar.  Assessing Dimensionality of a Set of Item Responses--Comparison of Different Approaches. , 1994 .

[4]  Factors Affecting Differential Item Functioning for Black Examinees on Scholastic Aptitude Test Analogy Items. Research Report No. 87-23. , 1987 .

[5]  H. Wainer,et al.  Differential Item Functioning. , 1994 .

[6]  Terry A. Ackerman,et al.  A Didactic Example of the Influence of Conditioning on the Complete Latent Ability Space When Performing DIF Analyses. , 1993 .

[7]  Dorothy T. Thayer,et al.  Differential Item Performance and the Mantel-Haenszel Procedure. , 1986 .

[8]  Ratna Nandakumar,et al.  Refinements of Stout’s Procedure for Assessing Latent Trait Unidimensionality , 1993 .

[9]  P. Holland,et al.  DIF DETECTION AND DESCRIPTION: MANTEL‐HAENSZEL AND STANDARDIZATION1,2 , 1992 .

[10]  Terry A. Ackerman.  A Didactic Explanation of Item Bias, Item Impact, and Item Validity from a Multidimensional Perspective , 1992 .

[11]  R. Hambleton,et al.  The Effects of Score Group Width on the Mantel-Haenszel Procedure. , 1994 .

[12]  K. Ercikan,et al.  Analysis of Differential Item Functioning in the NAEP History Assessment , 1988 .

[13]  Nancy L. Allen,et al.  Thin Versus Thick Matching in the Mantel-Haenszel Procedure for Detecting DIF , 1993 .

[14]  W. H. Angoff,et al.  Perspectives on differential item functioning methodology. , 1993 .

[15]  Mark D. Reckase,et al.  The Discriminating Power of Items That Measure More Than One Dimension , 1991 .

[16]  K. Mazor.  An investigation of the effects of conditioning on two ability estimates in DIF analyses when the data are two-dimensional. , 1993 .

[17]  Mark D. Reckase,et al.  The Difficulty of Test Items That Measure More Than One Ability , 1985 .

[18]  Nambury S. Raju,et al.  An Empirical Assessment of the Mantel-Haenszel for Studying Differential Item Performance , 1989 .

[19]  William Stout,et al.  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 , 1993 .

[20]  Alieia P. Sehmitt,et al.  Differential Item Functioning for Minority Examinees on the SAT , 1990 .