Assessment of the Measurement Equivalence of a Spanish Translation of the 16PF Questionnaire

The differential functioning of items and tests (DFIT) framework was used to examine the measurement equivalence of a Spanish translation of the Sixteen Personality Factor (16PF) Questionnaire. The questionnaire was administered in English to English-speaking Anglo-Americans and English-dominant Hispanic Americans and in Spanish to Spanish-dominant Hispanic Americans and Spanish-speaking Mexican nationals. As expected, the compensatory differential item functioning/differential test functioning (CDIF/DTF) procedure, which accounts for CDIF at the scale level, flagged fewer items as differential functioning than did the noncompensatory differential item functioning (NCDIF) procedure. Results did not support the hypothesis that DIF would be greatest in the Anglo versus Spanish-speaker comparison followed by the Hispanic versus Spanish-speaker comparison and least in the Anglo versus Hispanic comparison. Advantages of using the DFIT framework in assessing test translations, especially for test developers, are discussed.

[1]  R. Cattell.  Personality and motivation structure and measurement , 1958 .

[2]  M. R. Novick,et al.  Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. , 1971 .

[3]  An Investigation of Holland Types and the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire‐Fifth Edition , 2001 .

[4]  L. Humphreys.  An analysis and evaluation of test and item bias in the prediction context. , 1986 .

[5]  Seock-Ho Kim,et al.  A Comparison of Lord's χ2 and Raju's Area Measures In Detection of DIF , 1993 .

[6]  Wim J. van der Linden,et al.  IRT-Based Internal Measures of Differential Functioning of Items and Tests , 1995 .

[7]  R. Hambleton,et al.  Translating Tests: Some Practical Guidelines , 1996 .

[8]  Neil J. Dorans,et al.  ASSESSING UNEXPECTED DIFFERENTIAL ITEM PERFORMANCE OF FEMALE CANDIDATES ON SAT AND TSWE FORMS ADMINISTERED IN DECEMBER 1977: AN APPLICATION OF THE STANDARDIZATION APPROACH1 , 1983 .

[9]  H. Kimmel,et al.  Identification of unique cultural response patterns by means of item response theory. , 1992 .

[10]  Dorothy T. Thayer,et al.  DIFFERENTIAL ITEM FUNCTIONING AND THE MANTEL‐HAENSZEL PROCEDURE , 1986 .

[11]  Robert J. Mislevy,et al.  BILOG 3 : item analysis and test scoring with binary logistic models , 1990 .

[12]  Martha L. Stocking,et al.  Developing a Common Metric in Item Response Theory , 1982 .

[13]  Neil J. Dorans,et al.  THE STANDARDIZATION APPROACH TO ASSESSING DIFFERENTIAL SPEEDEDNESS , 1988 .

[14]  Barbara B. Ellis,et al.  Differential item functioning: implications for test translations , 1989 .

[15]  F. Drasgow,et al.  Modified parallel analysis: A procedure for examining the latent dimensionality of dichotomously scored item responses. , 1983 .

[16]  Melvin R. Novick,et al.  Some latent train models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability , 1966 .

[17]  Seock-Ho Kim,et al.  A Comparison of Two Area Measures for Detecting Differential Item Functioning , 1991 .

[18]  R. Gorsuch,et al.  Number of Factors in the Personality Sphere: Does Increase in Factors Increase Predictability of Real-Life Criteria? , 1988 .

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

[20]  Gregory L. Candell,et al.  An Iterative Procedure for Linking Metrics and Assessing Item Bias in Item Response Theory , 1988 .

[21]  P. Becker,et al.  Evaluation of attitude survey translations an investigation using item response theory. , 1989, International journal of psychology : Journal international de psychologie.

[22]  F. Drasgow.  Scrutinizing psychological tests: Measurement equivalence and equivalent relations with external variables are the central issues , 1984 .

[23]  M. Roznowski.  Use of tests manifesting sex differences as measures of intelligence: Implications for measurement bias. , 1987 .

[24]  Fritz Drasgow,et al.  Applications of item response theory to analysis of attitude scale translations. , 1982 .

[25]  Christine E. DeMars,et al.  Item Response Theory , 2010, Assessing Measurement Invariance for Applied Research.

[26]  M. Roznowski,et al.  Examining the Measurement Quality of Tests Containing Differentially Functioning Items: Do Biased Items Result in Poor Measurement? , 1999 .

[27]  Nambury S. Raju,et al.  Determining the Significance of Estimated Signed and Unsigned Areas Between Two Item Response Functions , 1990 .

[28]  Glen R. Budgell,et al.  Analysis of Differential Item Functioning in Translated Assessment Instruments , 1995 .

[29]  Gregory L. Candell,et al.  Cross-Language and Cross-Cultural Comparisons in Scale Translations , 1986 .

[30]  C. Hulin,et al.  Psychometric equivalence of a translation of the job descriptive index into Hebrew , 1986 .