SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi / 2014 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2

-

Değişen Madde Fonksiyonunu Belirlemede Mantel-Haenszel ve Lojistik Regresyon Tekniklerinin Karşılaştırılması

Devrim ERDEM KEKLİK
Pages
12–25
Publication Date
2014-04-26
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)

The results showed that with equal group distribution, Type I error rates of MH and LR techniques had similar and near the nominal α level.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study was to compare Type I error rates and power for Mantel-Haenszel (MH) and logistic regression (LR) tests for reference and focal groups with varying ability distributions, sample size and sample size ratios.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study WinGen3 was used to simulate ability estimates and to generate response data.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results showed that with equal group distribution, Type I error rates of MH and LR techniques had similar and near the nominal α level.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Değişen madde fonksiyonu · I. tip hata · istatistiksel güç

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare Type I error rates and power for Mantel-Haenszel (MH) and logistic regression (LR) tests for reference and focal groups with varying ability distributions, sample size and sample size ratios. In this study WinGen3 was used to simulate ability estimates and to generate response data. The two-parameter logistic item response model was used to generate the item parameters for both non-DIF and DIF items. The results showed that with equal group distribution, Type I error rates of MH and LR techniques had similar and near the nominal α level. On the other hand, with unequal group distribution, inflated Type I error rates were observed in MH and LR procedures. Furthermore, the highest type I error rates were observed when difference between ability distributions was high and sample size was large. Results also showed that conditions leading to type I error rate inflation also result in artificially enhanced power rates

Özet

Bu araştırmada, iki kategorili verilerde değişen madde fonksiyonu (DMF) belirlemede kullanılan Mantel-Haenszel (MH) ve lojistik regresyon (LR) tekniklerinin I. Tip hata oranları ve istatistiksel güç değerlerinin odak ve referans grubun yetenek dağılımı, örneklem büyüklüğü ve örneklem büyüklüğü oranlarının değiştiği çeşitli koşullar altında karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada, yetenek kestirimleri ve cevaplayıcı tepkileri WinGen3 simülasyon programı kullanılarak elde edilmiştir. DMF içeren ve DMF içermeyen madde parametreleri iki parametreli lojistik modele uygun olarak üretilmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda, referans ve odak grup yetenek dağılımları birim normal dağılım gösterdiğinde MH ve LR tekniklerinde benzer ve nominal α düzeyine yakın I. Tip hata oranları ortaya çıkmıştır. Buna karşın, referans ve odak grup yetenek dağılımları farklılaştığında MH ve LR tekniklerinde şişirilmiş I. Tip hataların ortaya çıktığı gözlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KEKLİK, D. E. (2014). -. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2, 12–25. https://ajindex.com/articles/137336

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Ankenmann, R. D., Witt, E. A. and Dunbar, S. B. (1999). An Investigation of the Power of the Likelihood Ratio Goodness-of-Fit Statistics in Detecting Differential Item Functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 4, 277–300.
  2. Atar, B. (2007). Differential Item Functioning Analyses For Mixed Response Data Using IRT Likelihood-Ratio Test, Logistic Regression, and GLLAMM Procedures. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Atar, B. and Kamata, A. (2011). Comparison of IRT Likelihood Ratio Test and Logistic Regression DIF Detection Procedures. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 41, 36–47.
  3. Camilli, G. (2006).
  4. Test Fairness. In Brennan, R. L. (Ed). Educational Measurement (p. 221–257). CT: Wesport. American Council on Education. Camilli, G. and Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for Identifying Biased Test Items. V 4. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Chang, H., Mazzeo, J. and Roussos, L. (1996). Detecting DIF for polytomously scored items: An adaptation of SIBTEST procedure. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33(3), 333–353.
  5. Clauser, B. E., Mazor, K. M., and Hambleton, R. K. (1993). The effects of purification of the matching criterion on the identification of DIF using the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Applied Measurement in Education, 6, 269–279.
  6. Clauser, B., Mazor, K., and Hambleton, R. K. (1994). The effects of score group width on the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31, 67–78.
  7. DeMars, C. E. (2009). Modifcation of the Mantel-Haenszel and logistic regression DIF procedures to incorporate the SIBTEST regression correction. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 34, 149-170.
  8. DeMars, C. E. (2010). Type I error inflation for detecting DIF in the presence of impact. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 961–972.
  9. Dorans, N. J. and Holland, P. W. (1993). Detection of Differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. In P. W. Holland ve H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 25–66).
  10. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Donoghue, J. R., and Allen, N. L. (1993). Thin versus thick matching in the Mantel- Haenszel procedure for detecting DIF. Journal of Educational Statistics, 18, 131–154.
  11. Fidalgo, A. M.; Mellenberg, G. J., and Muniz, J. (2000).
  12. Effects of Amount of DIF, Test Length, and Purification Type on Robustness and Power of Mantel-Haenszel Procedures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 5(3), 43–53.
  13. Finch, H