SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 1

Performances of MIMIC and Logistic Regression Procedures in Detecting DIF

Seçil UĞURLU
Burcu ATAR
Pages
1–12
Publication Date
2020-03-24
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)

When the two methods were compared according to their Type I error rates, it was concluded that the change in sample size was more effective for MIMIC method.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, differential item functioning (DIF) detection performances of multiple indicators, multiple causes (MIMIC) and logistic regression (LR) methods for dichotomous data were investigated.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Performances of these two methods were compared by calculating the Type I error rates and power for each simulation condition.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:When the two methods were compared according to their Type I error rates, it was concluded that the change in sample size was more effective for MIMIC method.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2000 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Differential item functioning · MIMIC model · Logistic regression

Abstract

In this study, differential item functioning (DIF) detection performances of multiple indicators, multiple causes (MIMIC) and logistic regression (LR) methods for dichotomous data were investigated. Performances of these two methods were compared by calculating the Type I error rates and power for each simulation condition. Conditions covered in the study were: sample size (2000 and 4000 respondents), ability distribution of focal group [N(0, 1) and N(-0.5, 1)], and the percentage of items with DIF (10% and 20%). Ability distributions of the respondents in the reference group [N(0, 1)], ratio of focal group to reference group (1:1), test length (30 items), and variation in difficulty parameters between groups for the items that contain DIF (0.6) were the conditions that were held constant. When the two methods were compared according to their Type I error rates, it was concluded that the change in sample size was more effective for MIMIC method. On the other hand, the change in the percentage of items with DIF was more effective for LR. When the two methods were compared according to their power, the most effective variable for both methods was the sample size.

🔖

Cite This Article

UĞURLU, S., ATAR, B. (2020). Performances of MIMIC and Logistic Regression Procedures in Detecting DIF. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 1, 1–12. https://ajindex.com/articles/137293

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (6)

  1. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Crane, P. K., Belle, G., & Larson, E. B. (2004). Test bias in a cognitive test: Differential item functioning in the CASI. Statistics in Medicine, 23(2), 241–256. doi: 10.1002/sim.1713 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(4), 355-368.
  2. Finch, H. (2005). The MIMIC model as a method for detecting DIF: Comparison with Mantel-Haenszel, SIBTEST, and the IRT likelihood ratio. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29(4), 278–295. doi: 10.1177/0146621605275728 Finch, W. H., & French, B. F. (2007). Detection of crossing differential item functioning: A comparison of four methods. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(4), 565–582. doi: 10.1177/0013164406296975 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(5), 275–284.
  3. Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (1993). Differential Item Functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer, & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129-145).
  4. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mazor, K. M., Kanjee, A., & Clauser, B. E. (1995). Using logistic regression and the Mantel-Haenszel with multiple ability estimates to detect differential item functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32(2), 131–144.
  5. Muthen, B. O. (1988). Some uses of structural equation modeling in validity studies: Extending IRT to external variables. In H. Wainer, & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 213-238).
  6. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Oort, F. J. (1998). Simulation study of item bias detection with restricted factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 5(2), 107–124. doi: 10.1080/10705519809540095 R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environmen