Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

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
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 Zenisky, A. L.
Right arrow Articles by Robin, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Detection Of Differential Item Functioning In Large-Scale State Assessments: A Study Evaluating A Two-Stage Approach

April L. Zenisky

University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Ronald K. Hambleton

University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Frédéric Robin

Educational Testing Service

In differential item functioning (DIF) studies, examinees from different groups are typically ability matched, and then one or more statistical indices are used to compare performance on a set of test items. Typically, matching is on total test score (a criterion both observable and easily accessible), but it may be limited in value because if DIF is present, it is likely to distort test scores and potentially confound any item performance differences. Thus, some researchers have advocated iterative approaches for DIF detection. In this article, a two-stage methodology for evaluating DIF in large-scale state assessment data was explored. The findings illustrated the merit of iterative approaches for DIF detection. Items being flagged as DIF in the second stage were not necessarily the same items identified as DIF in the first stage and vice versa, and this finding was directly related to the amount of DIF found in the Stage 1 analyses.

Key Words: DIF detection • standardization procedure • large-scale assessment • two-stage DIF

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 63, No. 1, 51-64 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164402239316


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Psychoeducational AssessmentHome page
S. E. Bolt and J. Ysseldyke
Accommodating Students With Disabilities in Large-Scale Testing: A Comparison of Differential Item Functioning (DIF) Identified Across Disability Types
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, June 1, 2008; 26(2): 121 - 138.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL STATISTICSHome page
P. O. Monahan, C. A. McHorney, T. E. Stump, and A. J. Perkins
Odds Ratio, Delta, ETS Classification, and Standardization Measures of DIF Magnitude for Binary Logistic Regression
Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, March 1, 2007; 32(1): 92 - 109.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]