Performance of SIBTEST When the Percentage of DIF Items is Large

Gierl, Mark J.; Gotzmann, Andrea; Boughton, Keith A.

doi:10.1207/s15324818ame1703_2

Cited by 24 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…36-37). This was found for the simultaneous item bias test (SIBTEST: Shealy & Stout, 1993) by Penfield and Camelli (2007, p. 125), Gierl, Gotzmann, and Boughton (2004), and DeMars (2010), for the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) test by Magis and Boeck (2012), and for logistic regression (Swaminathan & Rogers, 1990) by Jodoin and Gierl (2001). Second, many procedures show a tendency to detect too many DIF items.…”

Section: The Problem With the Detection Of Dif Itemsmentioning

confidence: 88%

A Statistical Test for Differential Item Pair Functioning

Bechger

Maris

2014

Psychometrika

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an IRT-based statistical test for differential item functioning (DIF). The test is developed for items conforming to the Rasch (Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests, The Danish Institute of Educational Research, Copenhagen, 1960) model but we will outline its extension to more complex IRT models. Its difference from the existing procedures is that DIF is defined in terms of the relative difficulties of pairs of items and not in terms of the difficulties of individual items. The argument is that the difficulty of an item is not identified from the observations, whereas the relative difficulties are. This leads to a test that is closely related to Lord's (Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, 1980) test for item DIF albeit with a different and more correct interpretation. Illustrations with real and simulated data are provided.

show abstract

Section: The Problem With the Detection Of Dif Itemsmentioning

confidence: 88%

A Statistical Test for Differential Item Pair Functioning

Bechger

Maris

2014

Psychometrika

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The condition in which 10% of test items contained DIF reflects a general situation in test use, it being usual in achievement or aptitude tests for 10% to 15% of items to have DIF (Narayanan & Swaminathan, 1994). However, in test adaptations, the percentage of DIF items is about 20% or higher (Gierl, Gotzmann, & Boughton, 2004).…”

Section: Experimental Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Binary Logistic Regression Analysis for Detecting Differential Item Functioning

Hidalgo

Gómez-Benito

Zumbo

2014

Educational and Psychological Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors analyze the effectiveness of the R 2 and delta log odds ratio effect size measures when using logistic regression analysis to detect differential item functioning (DIF) in dichotomous items. A simulation study was carried out, and the Type I error rate and power estimates under conditions in which only statistical testing was used were compared with the rejection rates obtained when statistical testing was combined with an effect size measure based on recommended cutoff criteria. The manipulated variables were sample size, impact between groups, percentage of DIF items in the test, and amount of DIF. The results showed that false-positive rates were higher when applying only the statistical test than when an effect size decision rule was used in combination with a statistical test. Type I error rates were affected by the number of test items with DIF, as well as by the magnitude of the DIF. With respect to power,

show abstract

“…In particular, it is impossible to detect DIF if all questions (or symptoms) have DIF of similar magnitude and direction (Camilli, 1993). This theoretical concern has been borne out in simulation studies by Gierl et al (2004), who investigated the performance of SIBTEST in the presence of pervasive DIF. They found that in these circumstances, SIBTEST may fail to detect questions with significant DIF and, further, may falsely flag questions that in reality lack DIF.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential Item Functioning Between Ethnic Groups in the Epidemiological Assessment of Depression

Breslau¹,

Javaras²,

Blacker³

et al. 2008

Journal of Nervous &Amp; Mental Disease

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A potential explanation for the finding that disadvantaged minority status is associated with a lower lifetime risk for depression is that individuals from minority ethnic groups may be less likely to endorse survey questions about depression even when they have the same level of depression. We examine this possibility using a nonparametric item response theory approach to assess differential item functioning (DIF) in a national survey of psychiatric disorders, the National Comorbidity Survey. Of 20 questions used to assess depression symptoms, we found evidence of DIF in 3 questions when comparing non-Hispanic blacks with non-Hispanic whites and in 3 questions when comparing Hispanics with non-Hispanic whites. However, removal of the questions with DIF did not alter the relative prevalence of depression between ethnic groups. Ethnic differences do exist in response to questions concerning depression, but these differences do not account for the finding of relatively low prevalence of depression among minority groups. KeywordsDepression; measurement; bias; ethnicity; epidemiology Although risk of depression is consistently associated with low socioeconomic status (Lorant et al., 2003), epidemiological studies have not found elevated risk for depression among socially disadvantaged minority groups in the United States. In fact, all surveys that have assessed depression in national samples of American adults have found significantly lower lifetime risk for depression among non-Hispanic blacks compared with non-Hispanic whites (Blazer et al., 1994;Breslau et al., 2006;Somervell et al., 1989;Weissman et al., 1991;Williams et al., 2007). In addition, no surveys have found higher risk for depression among Hispanics relative to non-Hispanic whites, whereas some have found significantly lower risk among Hispanics than non-Hispanic whites (Blazer et al., 1994;Breslau et al., 2006;Karno et al., 1987). However, because of the difficulty of establishing the cultural equivalence of NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript psychological constructs (Butcher et al., 2003;Janca, 2005;Room et al., 1996), including depression (Kleinman, 2004), concerns about the validity of this counterintuitive finding remain (Rogler, 1999). Measurement bias resulting from differential misclassification, with minorities being less likely to meet DSM criteria despite similar levels of underlying disorder, remains a potential methodological explanation for these findings (Rogler et al., 2001).In this article, we investigate whether measurement bias in the assessment of depression can account for the unexpectedly low lifetime prevalence of depression among Hispanics and nonHispanic blacks relative to non-Hispanic whites. Data come from the National Comorbidity Survey (NCS), a nationally representative survey of psychiatric disorders in which respondents were interviewed face-to-face by nonclinician interviewers using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), a fully structured diagnostic inter...

show abstract

Performance of SIBTEST When the Percentage of DIF Items is Large

Cited by 24 publications

References 33 publications

A Statistical Test for Differential Item Pair Functioning

A Statistical Test for Differential Item Pair Functioning

Binary Logistic Regression Analysis for Detecting Differential Item Functioning

Differential Item Functioning Between Ethnic Groups in the Epidemiological Assessment of Depression

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About