Uniform DIF and DIF Defined by Differences in Item Response Functions

Uniform differential item functioning (DIF) exists when the statistical relationship between item response and group is constant for all levels of a matching variable. Two other types of DIF are defined based on differences in item response functions (IRFs) among the groups of examinees: unidirectional DIF (the IRFs do not cross) and parallel DIF (the IRFs are the same shape but shifted from one another by a constant, i.e., the IRFs differ only in location). It is shown that these three types of DIF are not equivalent and the relationships among them are examined in this paper for two item response categories, two groups, and an ideal continuous univariate matching variable. The results imply that unidirectional and parallel DIF which have been considered uniform DIF by several authors are not uniform DIF. For example, it is shown in this paper that parallel three-parameter logistic IRFs do not result in uniform DIF. It is suggested that the term “uniform DIF” be reserved for the condition in which the association between the item response and group is constant for all values of the matching variable, as distinguished from parallel and unidirectional DIF.

[1]  F. Lord.  Applications of Item Response Theory To Practical Testing Problems , 1980 .

[2]  G. J. Mellenbergh.  Contingency Table Models for Assessing Item Bias , 1982 .

[3]  Noel A Cressie,et al.  Characterizing the manifest probabilities of latent trait models , 1983 .

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

[5]  R. Zwick.  When Do Item Response Function and Mantel-Haenszel Definitions of Differential Item Functioning Coincide? , 1990 .

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

[7]  Roger E. Millsap,et al.  On the misuse of manifest variables in the detection of measurement bias , 1992 .

[8]  Nancy L. Allen,et al.  “THIN” VERSUS “THICK” MATCHING IN THE MANTEL-HAENSZEL PROCEDURE FOR DETECTING DIF , 1992 .

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

[10]  R. Hambleton,et al.  The Effect of Sample Size on the Functioning of the Mantel-Haenszel Statistic , 1992 .

[11]  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 .

[12]  H. Swaminathan,et al.  A Comparison of Logistic Regression and Mantel-Haenszel Procedures for Detecting Differential Item Functioning , 1993 .

[13]  Howard T. Everson,et al.  Methodology Review: Statistical Approaches for Assessing Measurement Bias , 1993 .

[14]  R. Hambleton,et al.  Identification of Nonuniform Differential Item Functioning Using a Variation of the Mantel-Haenszel Procedure , 1994 .

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

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

[17]  R. Millsap,et al.  Factors Influencing the Mantel-Haenszel Procedure the Detection of Differential Item Functioning , 1994 .

[18]  Cynthia G. Parshall,et al.  Exact Versus Asymptotic Mantel-Haenszel DIF Statistics: A Comparison of Performance Under Small-Sample Conditions , 1995 .

[19]  Gerhard H. Fischer,et al.  Some neglected problems in IRT , 1995 .

[20]  Nancy L. Allen,et al.  Applying the Mantel-Haenszel Procedure to Complex Samples of Items , 1996 .

[21]  C. S. L. Costas,et al.  Identification of Nonuniform Differential Item Functioning: A Comparison of Mantel-Haenszel and Item Response Theory Analysis Procedures , 1997 .