SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2008 / Cilt: 2008 - Sayı: 34

Comparison of Restricted-Factor Analysis with Likelihood-Ratio and Mantel-Hanzel Methods in Dif Analyses

Farklı İşleyen Maddelerin Belirlenmesinde Sınırlandırılmış Faktör Çözümlemesinin Olabilirlik-Oranı ve Mantel-Haenszel Yöntemleriyle Karşılaştırılması

Selda YILDIRIM
Pages
297–307
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)

This study revealed that, in both occasions where the group means are equal or different, RFA produced more accurate results than M-H and IRT-LR.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is to compare the Restricted Factor Analysis (RFA) results to that of Mantel Haenszel (M-H) and Likelihood Ratio (IRT-LR) analyses.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The data of PISA 2003 mathematics items from the English and Turkish versions were used in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This study revealed that, in both occasions where the group means are equal or different, RFA produced more accurate results than M-H and IRT-LR.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2003 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to compare the Restricted Factor Analysis (RFA) results to that of Mantel Haenszel (M-H) and Likelihood Ratio (IRT-LR) analyses. The data of PISA 2003 mathematics items from the English and Turkish versions were used in the study. Results of these empirical analyses were controlled and investigated further through the use of a simulation study. This study revealed that, in both occasions where the group means are equal or different, RFA produced more accurate results than M-H and IRT-LR.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı farklı işleyen maddelerin belirlenmesinde, Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) ve Olabilirlik Oranı Analizi (OOA) gibi yöntemlere kıyasla, daha seyrek kullanılan Sınırlandırılmış Faktör Çözümlemesi (SFÇ) yöntemini M-H ve OOA ile karşılaştırmaktır. Söz konusu çalışmada PISA 2003 matematik maddeleri kullanılmış, İngilizce ve Türkçe formları arasında yanlı çalışma potansiyeli olan sorular tespit edilmiştir. Gerçek veri kullanılan bu analizlere ek olarak, elde edilen bulguların kontrol edilmesine ve açıklanmasına yönelik bir simülasyon çalışması da yapılmıştır. Sonuçta SFÇ yönteminin karşılaştırılan grup ortalamaları farklı ya da eşit olduğu durumlarda M-H ve OOA yöntemlerine göre, faklı işleyen maddeleri belirleme oranına göre daha doğru sonuçlar verdiği görülmüştür.

🔖

Cite This Article

YILDIRIM, S. (2022). Comparison of Restricted-Factor Analysis with Likelihood-Ratio and Mantel-Hanzel Methods in Dif Analyses. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 2008 - Sayı: 34, 297–307. https://ajindex.com/articles/532406

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  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. Allalouf, A., Hambleton, R.K. ve Sireci, S.G. (1999). Identifying the causes of DIF in translated verbal items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36(3), 185 – 198. Angoff, W.H. ve Ford, S.F. (1973). Item-race interaction on a test of scholastic aptitude. Journal of Educational Measurement, 10, 95-105.
  3. Arim, R.G. ve Ercikan, K. (2005 April). Comparability Between the US and Turkish Versions of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study’s Mathematics Test Results. Paper presented at National Council on Measurement in Evaluation, Montreal, Canada. Beaton, A.E. (1998). Comparing cross-national student performance on TIMSS using different test items. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 529-542.
  4. Benito J.G. ve Ara M.J.N. (2000). A comparison of X2, RFA and IRT based procedures in the detection of DIF. Quality ve Quantity, 34, 17-31.
  5. Benjamini, Y. ve Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society.series B, 57, 89-300.
  6. Camilli, G. ve Congdon, P. (1999). Application of a method of estimating DIF for polytomous test items. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24(4), 323-341.
  7. Camilli, G. ve Shepard, L.A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. California: Sage Publications. Çet, S., Yıldırım, H.H. ve Berberoğlu, G. (2006 June-July). Differential item functioning (DIF) analysis of PISA 2003 mathematics items across Gender and SES groups. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on the Teaching of Mathematics, İstanbul,
  8. Turkey. Deng, L.Y. ve Lin, D.K.J. (2000). Random Number Generation for the New Century.The American Statistician, 54(2), 145-150.
  9. Donoghue, J.R. ve Allen, N.L. (1993). Thin versus thick matching in the Mantel-Haenszel procedure for detecting DIF. Journal of Educational Statistics, 18(2), 131 –154. Engelhard, G. (1990). Gender differences in performance on mathematics items: evidence from the United States and Thailand. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 13-26.
  10. Ercikan, K. (2002). Disentangling sources of differential item functioning in multilanguage assessments. International Journal of Testing, 2(3ve4), 199-215.
  11. Gao, L. ve Wang, C. (2005). Using five procedures to detect DIF with passage-based testlet