This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Rudas, T. Articles by Zwick, R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Estimating the Importance of Differential Item Functioning

Central European University and TÁRKI, Budapest

Rebecca Zwick

University of California, Santa Barbara

Several methods have been proposed to detect differential item functioning (DIF), an item response pattern in which members of different demographic groups have different conditional probabilities of answering a test item correctly, given the same level of ability. In this article, the mixture index of fit, proposed by Rudas, Clogg, and Lindsay (1994), is used to estimate the fraction of the population for which DIF occurs, and this approach is compared to the Mantel-Haenszel (Mantel & Haenszel, 1959) test of DIF developed by Holland (1985; see Holland & Thayer, 1988). The proposed estimation procedure, which is noniterative, can provide information about which portions of the item response data appear to be contributing to DIF.

Key Words: differential item functioning • Mantel-Haenszel test • maximum likelihood estimation • mixture index of fit

Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, Vol. 22, No. 1, 31-45 (1997)
DOI: 10.3102/10769986022001031


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. A. Roussos, D. L. Schnipke, and P. J. Pashley A Generalized Formula for the Mantel-Haenszel Differential Item Functioning Parameter Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, January 1, 1999; 24(3): 293 - 322. [Abstract] [PDF]