Journals / Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 3

An Investigation of the Effect of Missing Data on Differential Item Functioning in Mixed Type Tests

Pages
212–231
Publication Date
2022-10-12
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 compared with the complete data set, the three methods showed similar results in the 10% MAR mechanism while MCMC gave the closest results in the 20% MAR mechanism.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this research, the aim was to examine the effects of Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), multiple imputation (MI), and expectation maximization (EM), all methods of coping with missing data in mixed type tests including dichotomous and polytomous items, on the differential item functioning (DIF).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study was carried out on a complete data set consisting of the scores of 1160 students who took booklet number 9 in the science test in Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2019 and answered it in full.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:When compared with the complete data set, the three methods showed similar results in the 10% MAR mechanism while MCMC gave the closest results in the 20% MAR mechanism.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:mixed type test · missing data · differential item functioning

Abstract

In this research, the aim was to examine the effects of Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), multiple imputation (MI), and expectation maximization (EM), all methods of coping with missing data in mixed type tests including dichotomous and polytomous items, on the differential item functioning (DIF). The study was carried out on a complete data set consisting of the scores of 1160 students who took booklet number 9 in the science test in Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2019 and answered it in full. The conditions to be examined for the effectiveness of the methods were missing data mechanism (MCAR and MAR), DIF level (A, B, and C), and missing data rate (10% and 20%). Data were assigned to the missing data sets created by deleting data at different rates under the missing completely at random (MCAR) and missing at random (MAR) mechanisms over the aforementioned data set. DIF analysis was performed on all the data sets obtained with the poly-SIBTEST method using the MCMC, MI, and EM methods. The results obtained from the complete data set were then compared with the result implications from other data sets for reference. The study showed that the EM and MCMC methods performed better for the C-level DIF than the A and B levels in terms of all conditions examined. MI was observed to be the most successful method in determining DIF in items showing DIF in 10% and 20% MCAR mechanisms. When compared with the complete data set, the three methods showed similar results in the 10% MAR mechanism while MCMC gave the closest results in the 20% MAR mechanism.

🔖

Cite This Article

DİNÇSOY, L. B., KELECİOĞLU, H. (2022). An Investigation of the Effect of Missing Data on Differential Item Functioning in Mixed Type Tests. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 3, 212–231. https://ajindex.com/articles/497135

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Allison, P. D. (2002).
  2. Missing data. Sage. Alpar, R. (2021). Çok değişkenli istatistiksel yöntemler. Detay. Banks, K. (2015). An introduction to missing data in the context of differential item functioning. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 20(12), 12. https://doi.org/10.7275/FPG0-5079
  3. Banks, K., & Walker, C. M. (2006). Performance of SIBTEST when focal group examinees have missing data. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. Bolt, D. M. (2000). A SIBTEST approach to testing DIF hypotheses using experimentally designed test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37(4), 307-327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2000.tb01089.x
  4. Camilli, G. (2006). Test fairness. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed.). American Council on Education & Praeger Publishers.
  5. Çüm, S., Demir, E. K., Gelbal, S., & Kışla, T. (2018). A comparison of advanced methods used for missing data imputation under different conditions. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 45, 230-249. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.332605
  6. Demir, E. (2013). Item and test parameters estimations for multiple choice tests in the presence of missing data: The case of SBS. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 3(2), 47-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.12973/jesr.2013.324a
  7. Emenogu, B. C., Falenchuck, O., & Childs, R. A. (2010). The effect of missing data treatment on Mantel- Haenszel DIF detection. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 56(4), 459-469. https://doi.org/10.11575/ajer.v56i4.55429
  8. Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. The Guilford Press.
  9. Falenchuk, O., & Herbert, M. (2009). Investigation of differential non-response as a factor affecting the results of Mantel-Haenszel DIF detection. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Fang, T. (1999). Detecting DIF in polytomous item responses [Doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa]. https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/8495?locale=fr
  10. Finch, H. (2011a). The use of multiple imputation for missing data in uniform DIF analysis: Power and type I error rates. Applied Measurement in Education, 24, 281-301. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2011.607054
  11. Finch, H. W. (2011b). The impact of missing data on the detection of nonuniform differential item functioning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(4), 663-683. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410385226
  12. Garrett, P. (2009). A M