Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors. No official endorsement by AHRQ or the Department of Health and Human Services is intended or should be inferred.
Establishing measurement equivalence is important because inaccurate assessment may lead to incorrect estimates of effects in research, and to suboptimal decisions at the individual, clinical level. Examination of differential item functioning (DIF) is a method for studying measurement equivalence. An item (i.e., one question in a longer scale) exhibits DIF if the item response differs across groups (e.g., gender, race), controlling for an estimate of the construct being measured. A distinction between applications in health, as contrasted with other settings such as educational and aptitude testing, is that there are many health-related constructs and multiple measures of each, few of which have received much critical evaluation. Discussed in this article are several methods for detection of differential item functioning (DIF), including non-parametric and parametric methods such as logistic regression, and those based on item response theory. Basic definitions and criteria for DIF detection are provided, as are steps in performing the analyses. Recommendations are presented and future directions discussed.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Crane, P. K., Gibbons, L. E., Ocepek-Welikson, K., Cook, K., Cella, D., Narasimhalu, K., Hays, R., & Teresi, J. A comparison of two sets of criteria for determining the presence of differential item functioning using ordinal logistic regression. Quality of Life Research, this issue.
Teresi, J. A., Ocepek-Welikson, K., Kleinman, M., Cook, K. F., Crane, P., Gibbons, L. E., Morales, L. S., Orlando-Edelen, M., & Cella, D. Evaluating measurement equivalence using the item response theory log-likelihood ratio (IRTLR) method to assess differential item functioning (DIF):Applications (with illustrations) to measures of physical functioning ability and general distress. Quality of Life Research, this issue.
Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Millsap, R. E., & Everson, H. T. (1993). Methodology review: Statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 297–334. CrossRef
Potenza, M. T., & Dorans, N. J. (1995). DIF assessment for polytomously scored items: A framework for classification and evaluation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 23–37. CrossRef
Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1993). Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 67–113). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Inc.
Teresi, J. A. (2001). Statistical methods for examination of differential item functioning (DIF) with applications to cross-cultural measurement of functional, physical and mental health. Journal of Mental Health and Aging, 7, 31–40.
King, G., Murray, C. J. L., Salomon, J. A., & Tandon, A. (2004). Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of measurement in survey research. American Political Science Review, 98, 191–207. CrossRef
Fleishman, J. A., & Lawrence, W. F. (2003) Demographic variation in SF-12 scores: True differences or differential item functioning? Medical Care, 41(Suppl. 7), III75–III86. PubMed
Fleishman, J. A., Spector, W. D., & Altman, B. M. (2002). Impact of differential item functioning on age and gender differences in functional disability. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 57B, S275–S284.
Orlando-Edelen, M., Thissen, D., Teresi, J. A., Kleinman, M., & Ocepek-Welikson, K. (2006). Identification of differential item functioning using item response theory and the likelihood-based model comparison approach: Application to the Mini-mental status examination. Medical Care, 44, S134–S142. PubMedCrossRef
Mantel, N., & Haenszel, W. M. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 719–748. PubMed
Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & J. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dorans, N. J., & Kulick, E. (1986). Demonstrating the utility of the standardization approach to assessing unexpected differential item performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23, 355–368. CrossRef
Shealy, R., & Stout, W. (1993). A model-based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from group ability differences and detects test bias/DTF as well as item bias/DIF. Psychometrika, 58, 159–194. CrossRef
Roussos, L. A., & Stout, W. F. (1996). Simulation studies of the effects of small sample size and studied item parameters on SIBTEST and Mantel-Haenszel type I error performance. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 215–230. CrossRef
Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 361–370. CrossRef
Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type(ordinal) item scores. Ottawa, Canada: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense. Retrieved from http://www.educ.ubc.ca/faculty/zumbo/DIF/index.html.
Jodoin, M. G., & Gierl, M. J. (2001). Evaluating type I error and power rates using an effect size measure with the logistic regression procedure for DIF detection. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 329–349. CrossRef
Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H, & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Thissen, D. (1991). MULTILOG TM User’s guide. Multiple, categorical item analysis and test scoring using Item response theory. Chicago: Scientific Software, Inc.
Thissen, D. (2001). IRTLRDIF v2.0b; Software for the Computation of the Statistics Involved in Item Response Theory Likelihood-Ratio Tests for Differential Item Functioning. Available on Dave Thissen’s web page.
Raju, N. S., van der Linden, W. J., & Fleer, P. F. (1995). IRT-based internal measures of differential functioning of items and tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 353–368. CrossRef
Flowers, C. P., Oshima, T. C., & Raju, N. S. (1999). A description and demonstration of the polytomous DFIT framework. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 309–326. CrossRef
Muthén, B. O. (2002). Beyond SEM: General latent variable modeling. Behaviormetrika, 29, 81–117. CrossRef
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2004). MPLUS Statistical Analysis with latent variables. Users guide. Los Angeles, California: Muthén and Muthén.
Meredith, W. (1964). Notes on factorial invariance. Psychometricka, 29, 177–185. CrossRef
Jones, R. N., & Gallo, J. J. (2002). Education and sex differences in the Mini-Mental State Examination: Effects of differential item functioning. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 57B, P548–P558.
Krause, N. (2002). A comprehensive strategy for developing closed-ended survey items for use in studies of older adults. Journal of Gerontology B Psychological Sciences, 57B, S263–S274.
Allalouf, A., Hambleton, R., & Sireci, S. (1999). Identifying the causes of translation DIF on verbal items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 185–198. CrossRef
Gierl, M. J., & Khaliq, S. N. (2001). Identifying sources of differential item and bundle functioning on translated achievement tests: A confirmatory analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 164–187. CrossRef
Roussos, L., & Stout, W. (1996). A multidimensionality-based DIF analysis paradigm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 355–371. CrossRef
McHorney, C. A. (2003). Ten recommendations for advancing patient-centered outcomes measurement for older persons. Annals of Internal Medicine, 139, 403–409. PubMed
Bolt, D. M. (2002). A Monte Carlo comparison of parametric and nonparametric polytomous DIF detection methods. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15, 113–141.
Wainer, H. (1993). Model-based standardized measurement of an item’s differential impact. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 123–135). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Inc.
Nandakumar R., & Roussos L. (in press) Evaluation of CATSIB procedure in pretest setting. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics.
Zwick, R., Thayer, D. T., & Wingersky, M. (1994). A simulation study of methods for assessing differential item functioning in computerized adaptive tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 121–140. CrossRef
Teresi, J. A., Holmes, D., Ramirez, M., Gurland, B. J., & Lantigua, R. (2001). Performance of cognitive tests among different racial/ethnic groups: Findings of differential item functioning and possible item bias. Journal of Mental Health and Aging, 7, 79–89.
Teresi, J., Cross, P., & Golden, R. (1989). Some applications of latent trait analysis to the measurement of ADL. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 44, S196–S204.
National Research Council. (2004). Measuring racial discrimination. Panel on methods for assessing discrimination. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
Johanson, G., & Alsmadi, A. (2002). Differential person functioning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 435–443. CrossRef
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2000) Racial and gender bias in ability and achievement tests. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 6, 151–158. CrossRef
- Differential item functioning and health assessment
Jeanne A. Teresi
John A. Fleishman
- Springer Netherlands