Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Educational and Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smith, R. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

A Comparison of the Rasch Separate Calibration and between-Fit Methods of Detecting Item Bias

Richard M. Smith

Rehabilitation Foundation, Inc.

The objective of this study is to compare two methods of detecting item bias within the framework of Rasch measurement. To accomplish this objective, it was first necessary to arrive at a clear understanding of the definition of bias as commonly used with Rasch measurement models. The comparison between the two methods was based on the Type I error rates in data that contain no bias and the power of the statistics to detect item bias when bias is present. The variables manipulated in this study included sample size, magnitude of bias, number of biased items present on the tests, and mean differences in the ability of the reference and focal groups. The two methods compared were the separate calibration t-test approach proposed by Wright and Stone in 1979 and the common calibration between-fit approach proposed by Wright, Mead, and Draba in 1976.The results indicate that the arbitrary use of bias levels such as +2 can result in the misidentification of biased items.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 56, No. 3, 403-418 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164496056003003
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Clin TrialsHome page
E. A Hahn, R. K Bode, H. Du, and D. Cella
Evaluating linguistic equivalence of patient-reported outcomes in a cancer clinical trial
Clinical Trials, June 1, 2006; 3(3): 280 - 290.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Eval Health ProfHome page
E. A. Hahn, B. Holzner, G. Kemmler, B. Sperner-Unterweger, S. A. Hudgens, and D. Cella
Cross-Cultural Evaluation of Health Status Using Item Response Theory: FACT-B Comparisons Between Austrian and U.S. Patients With Breast Cancer
Eval Health Prof, June 1, 2005; 28(2): 233 - 259.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
W.-C. Wang and C.-T. Chen
Item Parameter Recovery, Standard Error Estimates, and Fit Statistics of the Winsteps Program for the Family of Rasch Models
Educational and Psychological Measurement, June 1, 2005; 65(3): 376 - 404.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
S. Takala and F. Kaftandjieva
Test fairness: a DIF analysis of an L2 vocabulary test
Language Testing, July 1, 2000; 17(3): 323 - 340.
[Abstract] [PDF]