SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2022 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 3

Differential item functioning across gender with MIMIC modeling: PISA 2018 financial literacy items

Fatıma Münevver SAATÇİOĞLU
Pages
631–653
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

According to the results, the gender variable is a potential source of DIF for latent class indicators.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to investigate the presence of DIF over the gender variable with the latent class modeling approach.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Data were 953 students from the USA who participated in the PISA 2018 8th-grade financial literacy assessment.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results, the gender variable is a potential source of DIF for latent class indicators.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Differential item functioning · Latent class analysis · Measurement invariance

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate the presence of DIF over the gender variable with the latent class modeling approach. Data were 953 students from the USA who participated in the PISA 2018 8th-grade financial literacy assessment. Latent class analysis (LCA) approach was used to determine the latent classes and the data fit the three-class model better in line with fit indices. To obtain more information about the characteristics of the emerging classes, uniform and non-uniform DIF sources were determined by using the Multiple Indicator Multiple Causes (MIMIC) model. The findings are very important in terms of contributing to the interpretation of latent classes. According to the results, the gender variable is a potential source of DIF for latent class indicators. Gathering unbiased estimates for the measurement and structural parameters, it is important to include direct effects in the classes. Ignoring these effects can lead to incorrect determination of implicit classess. An example of the application of Multiple Indicator Multiple Causes (MIMIC) model showed in a latent class framework with a stepwise approach with this study.

Özet

The aim of this study is to investigate the presence of DIF over the gender variable with the latent class modeling approach. The data were collected from 953 students who participated in the PISA 2018 8th-grade financial literacy assessment in the USA. Latent Class Analysis (LCA) approach was used to identify the latent classes, and the data fit the three-class model better in line with fit indices. In order to obtain more information about the characteristics of the emerging classes, uniform and non-uniform DIF sources were identified by using the Multiple Indicator Multiple Causes (MIMIC) model. The findings are very important in terms of contributing to the interpretation of latent classes. According to the results, the gender variable was a source of DIF for latent classes. It is important to include direct effects by gathering unbiased estimates for the measurement and structural parameters. Disregarding these effects can lead to incorrect identification of implicit classess. A sample application of MIMIC model was performed in a latent class framework with a stepwise approach in this study.

🔖

Cite This Article

SAATÇİOĞLU, F. M. (2022). Differential item functioning across gender with MIMIC modeling: PISA 2018 financial literacy items. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 3, 631–653. https://ajindex.com/articles/540017

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  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, 67-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1992.tb00368.x American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association. Bozdogan, H. (1987). Model selection and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC): The general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika, 52, 345 370. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294361
  2. Cheng, Y., Shao, C., & Lathrop, Q.N. (2016). The mediated MIMIC model for understanding the underlying mechanism of DIF. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76(1), 43-63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164415576187
  3. Cho, S.J. (2007). A multilevel mixture IRT model for DIF analysis [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Georgia: Athens. Choi, Y., Alexeev, N., & Cohen, A.S. (2015). Differential item functioning analysis using a mixture 3-parameter logistic model with a covariate on the TIMSS 2007 mathematics test. International Journal of Testing, 15(3), 239 253. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2015.1007241
  4. Clark, S.L., & Muthén, B. (2009). Relating latent class analysis results to variables not included in the analysis. Avaliable online at: http://www.statmodel.com/download/relatinglca.pdf
  5. Cohen, A.S., & Bolt, D.M. (2005). A mixture model analysis of differential item functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 42(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2005.00007
  6. De Ayala, R.J., Kim, S.H., Stapleton, L.M., & Dayton, C.M. (2002). Differential item functioning: A mixture distribution conceptualization. International Journal of Testing, 2(3-4), 243-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2002.9669495
  7. De Ayala, R.J., & Santiago, S.Y. (2017). An introduction to mixture item response theory models. Journal of School Psychology, 60(1), 25 40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2016.01.002
  8. Educational Testing Service. (2019). Standards for Quality and Fairness. Retrieved from https://www.ets.org/s/about/pdf/standards.pdf.
  9. Embretson, S.E., & Reise, S.P. (2000). Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Erlbaum. 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, 278–295. https://doi.org/