SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2011 / Cilt: 2011 - Sayı: 41

MTK olabilirlik oranı testi ve lojistik regresyon değişen madde fonksiyonu belirleme yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması

Comparison of IRT likelihood ratio test and logistic regression dif detection procedures

Burcu ATAR
Akihito KAMATA
Pages
36–47
Publication Date
2022-10-19
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)

On the other hand, the power of ordinal logistic regression procedure was unacceptably low for all DIF conditions except for the large sample size and large DIF magnitude condition.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:BSTRACT: The Type I error rates and the power of IRT likelihood ratio test and cumulative logit ordinal logistic regression procedures in detecting differential item functioning (DIF) for polytomously scored items were investigated in this Monte Carlo simulation study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, 54 simulation conditions (combinations of 3 sample sizes, 2 sample size ratios, 3 DIF magnitudes, and 3 DIF conditions) were generated and each simulation condition was replicated 200 times.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:On the other hand, the power of ordinal logistic regression procedure was unacceptably low for all DIF conditions except for the large sample size and large DIF magnitude condition.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:3 sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

BSTRACT: The Type I error rates and the power of IRT likelihood ratio test and cumulative logit ordinal logistic regression procedures in detecting differential item functioning (DIF) for polytomously scored items were investigated in this Monte Carlo simulation study. For this purpose, 54 simulation conditions (combinations of 3 sample sizes, 2 sample size ratios, 3 DIF magnitudes, and 3 DIF conditions) were generated and each simulation condition was replicated 200 times. In general, the Type I error rates of IRT likelihood ratio test and ordinal logistic regression procedures were in good control across all simulation conditions. The power of likelihood-ratio test was high for medium or large sample sizes and moderate or large DIF magnitude conditions. The power of this procedure increased as the sample size or DIF magnitude increased. On the other hand, the power of ordinal logistic regression procedure was unacceptably low for all DIF conditions except for the large sample size and large DIF magnitude condition.

Özet

Bu Monte Carlo simülasyon çalışmasında, MTK olabilirlik oranı testi ve kümülatif lojit ordinal lojistik regresyon yöntemlerinin çok kategorili puanlanan maddeler için değişen madde fonksiyonunu (DMF) saptamada tip I hata oranlan ve güçleri incelenmiştir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, 54 simülasyon koşulu (3 örneklem büyüklüğü, 2 örneklem büyüklüğü oranı, 3 DMF büyüklüğü ve 3 DMF durumu) üretilmiş ve herbir simülasyon koşulu 200 kere tekrar edilmiştir. MTK olabilirlik oranı testi ve ordinal lojistik regresyon yöntemlerinin tip I hata oranlan genel olarak bütün simülasyon koşulları altında iyi kontrol sağlamıştır. MTK olabilirlik oranı testinin gücü orta veya büyük örneklem büyüklüğü ve orta veya büyük DMF büyüklüğü için yüksek bulunmuştur. Bu yöntemin gücü örneklem büyüklüğü veya DMF büyüklüğü arttıkça artmıştır. Diğer yandan, ordinal lojistik regresyon yönteminin gücü büyük örneklem büyüklüğü ve büyük DMF koşulu hariç bütün simülasyon koşulları için kabul edilemez derecede düşük çıkmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ATAR, B., KAMATA, A. (2022). MTK olabilirlik oranı testi ve lojistik regresyon değişen madde fonksiyonu belirleme yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 2011 - Sayı: 41, 36–47. https://ajindex.com/articles/532281

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Ackerman, T. A. (1992). A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact, and item validity from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29(1), 67-91.
  2. Ankenmann, R. D., Witt, E. A., & Dunbar, S. B. (1999). An investigation of the power of the likelihood ratio goodnes-of-fit statistic in detecting differential item functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36(4), 277-300.
  3. Chang, H., Mazzeo, J., & Roussos, L. (1996). Detecting DIF for polytomously scored items: An adaptation of the SIBTEST procedure. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35(3), 333-353.
  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. 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.
  6. Dorans, N. J., & Schmitt, A. P. (1993). Constructed response and differential item functioning: A pragmatic approach. (ETS-RR-91-47).
  7. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. French, A. W., & Miller, T. R. (1996). Logistic regression and its use in detecting differential item functioning in polytomous items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33(3), 315-332.
  8. Holland, P.W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds), Test validity (pp.129-145).
  9. Hillsdale, NL: Erlbaum. Kim, S., Cohen, A. S., DiStefano, C. A., & Kim, S. (1998). An investigation of the likelihood ratio test for detection of differential item functioningunder the partial credit models. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Kim, S. & Cohen, A. S. (1998). Detection of differential item functioning under the graded response model with the likelihood ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22(4), 345-355.
  10. Kristjansson, E., Aylesworth, R., McDowell, I., & Zumbo, B. D. (2005). A comparison of four methods for detecting differential item functioning in ordered response items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65 (6), 935-953.
  11. Mantel, N., & Haenszel, W. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 719-748.
  12. Miller, T. R., & Spray, J. A. (1993). Logistic discriminant function analysis