Journals / Türk Psikoloji Yazıları / 2006 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 18

The New Approaches in Scale Development: Methods of Differential Item Functioning (Item Bias) Based on Item Response Theory

Test ve Ölçek Geliştirmede Yeni Yaklaşımlar: Madde Cevap Kuramı Kapsamında Madde İşlevsel Farklılık (Madde Yanlılık) Yöntemleri

Pages
63–80
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These methods are IRT likelihood ratio test (LR) with comparison model, IRT differential functioning of items and tests (DFIT), and parameter comparison method.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Studies of differential item functioning (DIF) established on item response theory (IRT), provides quite powerful methods in examining the measurement equivalence or determining the item-test differential functioning among different cultures as well as in the comparison among groups that has members from sub group/population.
📊
Key Findings & Data:When a scale or an item does not measure the same latent trait or ability for both groups, the results are not interpretable with respect to the latent trait.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These methods are IRT likelihood ratio test (LR) with comparison model, IRT differential functioning of items and tests (DFIT), and parameter comparison method.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Studies of differential item functioning (DIF) established on item response theory (IRT), provides quite powerful methods in examining the measurement equivalence or determining the item-test differential functioning among different cultures as well as in the comparison among groups that has members from sub group/population. When a scale or an item does not measure the same latent trait or ability for both groups, the results are not interpretable with respect to the latent trait. Traditionally, this phenomenon has been called scale or item bias. More recently, item bias is called as differential item functioning (DIF) in the perspective of the item response theory. This article provides a brief primer overview of three differential item functioning methods based on the item response theory. These methods are IRT likelihood ratio test (LR) with comparison model, IRT differential functioning of items and tests (DFIT), and parameter comparison method.

Özet

Madde cevap kuramına temellenen madde işlevsel farklılık çalışmaları, farklı alt grup/evren üyelikleri olan gruplar arası karşılaştırmalarda olduğu kadar, farklı kültürler arasında da madde/ test işlevsel farklılığının belirlenmesinde ya da ölçme eşdeğerliğinin incelenmesinde oldukça güçlü yöntemler sağlamaktadır. Bir ölçek ya da madde aynı örtük özelliği her iki grupta aynı şekilde ölçemiyorsa (ölçme eşdeğerliği yoksa) testten elde edilen sonuçlara göre gruplar arasındaki benzerlik ya da farklılıklar, ilgilenilen örtük özellik kapsamında yorumlanamaz. Geleneksel test kuramı içerisinde bu olgu ölçek/test yanlılığı ya da madde yanlılığı olarak, madde cevap kuramı kapsamında ise madde işlevsel farklılığı olarak adlandırılmıştır. Bu yazıda madde cevap kuramına dayalı olarak üç madde işlevsel farklılık yönteminden söz edilecektir. Bu yöntemler; 1- Olabilirlik oranı testi model karşılaştırma yöntemi 2- Madde-test işlevsel farklılık yöntemi, 3- Parametre karşılaştırma yöntemi' dir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KORMAZ, M. (2006). The New Approaches in Scale Development: Methods of Differential Item Functioning (Item Bias) Based on Item Response Theory. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 18, 63–80. https://ajindex.com/articles/128460

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Bolt, D.M.,. Hare, R.D., Vitale, J.E., & Newman, J.P. (2004). A multigroup item response theory analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Psychological Assessment, 16,(2), 155-168.
  2. Budgell, G.R., Raju, N.S., & Quartetti, D.A. (1995). Analysis of differential item functioning in trans­lated assessment instruments. Applied Psycholo­gical Measurement, 19, (4), 309-321.
  3. Camilli, G., & Shepart, L.A. (1994). Methods for identif­ying biased test items. London: Sage Publication Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Chan, K.Y., Drasgow, F., & Williams, B. (2001). Fitting item response the­ory models to two personality inventories: Issues and insights. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(4), 523-562.
  4. Cohen, A.S., Kim, S., & Baker, F.B. (1993). Detection of differential item functioning in the graded res­ponse model. Applied Psychological Measure­ment, 17, (4), 335-350.
  5. Cooke, D.J., & Michie, C. (1999). Psychopathy across cultures: North America and Scotland compared. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, (1), 58-68.
  6. Cooke, D.J, Mİchie, C, Hart, S.D., & Hare, R.D. (1999). Evaluating the screening version of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL: SV): An item response theory analysis. Psychological As­sessment, 11(1), 3-13.
  7. Collins, W. C, Raju, S.N., & Edwards, J.E., (2000). As­sessing differential functioning in a satisfaction scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,.(3), 451-461.
  8. Crocker, L., & Algina, J., (1986). Introduction to classi­cal and modern test theory. New York: Holt, Ri-nehart and Winston, Inc. Embretson, S.E. (1999). Issues in the measurement of cognitive abilities. In S.E Embretson & S.L. Hershberger (Eds.), The new rules of measure­ment: What every psychologist and educator should know (pp. 1-15). Lawrence Erlbaum As-sociatesjnc. Facteau, J.D., & Craig, S.B. (2001). Are performance appraisal ratings from different rating sources comparable? Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 215-227.
  9. Flowers, C.P.,, Oshima, T.C. & Raju, N.S. (1999). A Description and demonstration of the polytomo-us-DFIT framework. Applied Psychological Me­asurement, 2 (4), 309-326.
  10. Glöckner-Rist, A., & Hoijtink, H. (2003). The best of both words: Factor analysis of dichotomous data using item response theory and structural equati­on modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(4), 544-565.
  11. Hambleton, R.K., Robin, F., & Xing, D. (2000). Item response models for the analysis of educational and psychological test data. In H.E.A.Tinsley & S.D.Brown (Eds.), Handbook of applied mul