Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to submit your manuscript to SPPS

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 All Versions of this Article:
0013164406296975v1
67/4/565    most recent
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 Holmes Finch, W.
Right arrow Articles by French, B. 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 Crossing Differential Item Functioning

A Comparison of Four Methods

W. Holmes Finch

Ball State University, whfinch{at}bsu.edu

Brian F. French

Purdue University

Differential item functioning (DIF) continues to receive attention both in applied and methodological studies. Because DIF can be an indicator of irrelevant variance that can influence test scores, continuing to evaluate and improve the accuracy of detection methods is an essential step in gathering score validity evidence. Methods for detecting uniform DIF are well established, whereas those for identifying the presence of nonuniform or crossing DIF are less clearly understood. Four such methods were compared: simultaneous item bias test (SIBTEST), logistic regression, item response theory likelihood ratio test, and confirmatory factor analysis. Factors manipulated were sample size, ability differences between groups, percentage of DIF, and the underlying model used to generate the data. Results suggest that all methods were able to control Type I error, but SIBTEST had the highest power of the approaches compared. Problems with detection rates were evident with different underlying models.

Key Words: nonuniform DIF • SIBTEST • logistic regression • IRTLR • confirmatory factor analysis

This version was published on August 1, 2007

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 67, No. 4, 565-582 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164406296975
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
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
W. H. Finch and B. F. French
Anomalous Type I Error Rates for Identifying One Type of Differential Item Functioning in the Presence of the Other
Educational and Psychological Measurement, October 1, 2008; 68(5): 742 - 759.
[Abstract] [PDF]