Differential Item Functioning and Item Information

Bryant, Damon U.; Williamson, David; Wooten, William; Forde, Dahlia S.

doi:10.1037/e518632013-246

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, it would be valuable to consider effect size measures in using MIRT models and examine how they perform under the simulation conditions considered in this study, compared with the χ 2 tests. To date, few studies have been conducted on developing effect size measures for MIRT models, especially at the item level (e.g., Bryant, Williamson, Wooten, & Forde, 2004). Therefore, investigating effect size measures for MIRT models should be pursued as a future study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chi-Square Difference Tests for Detecting Differential Functioning in a Multidimensional IRT Model

Suh

Cho

2014

Applied Psychological Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The performance of χ2 difference tests based on limited information estimation methods has not been extensively examined for differential functioning, particularly in the context of multidimensional item response theory (MIRT) models. Chi-square tests for detecting differential item functioning (DIF) and global differential item functioning (GDIF) in an MIRT model were conducted using two robust weighted least square estimators: weighted least square with adjusted means and variance (WLSMV) and weighted least square with adjusted means (WLSM), and the results were evaluated in terms of Type I error rates and rejection rates. The present study demonstrated systematic test procedures for detecting different types of GDIF and DIF in multidimensional tests. For the χ2 tests for detecting GDIF, WLSM tended to produce inflated Type I error rates for small sample size conditions, whereas WLSMV appeared to yield lower error rates than the expected value on average. In addition, WLSM produced higher rejection rates than WLSMV. For the χ2 tests for detecting DIF, WLSMV appeared to yield somewhat higher rejection rates than WLSM for all DIF tests except for the omnibus test. The error rates for both estimators were close to the expected value on average.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%