A Comparison of Aggregation Rules for Selecting Anchor Items in Multigroup DIF Analysis

Autor/inn/en	Huelmann, Thorben; Debelak, Rudolf; Strobl, Carolin
Titel	A Comparison of Aggregation Rules for Selecting Anchor Items in Multigroup DIF Analysis
Quelle	In: Journal of Educational Measurement, 57 (2020) 2, S.185-215 (31 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0022-0655
DOI	10.1111/jedm.12246
Schlagwörter	Test Items; Test Bias; Equated Scores; Item Analysis + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Test content; Testaufgabe; Testkritik; Itemanalyse
Abstract	This study addresses the topic of how anchoring methods for differential item functioning (DIF) analysis can be used in multigroup scenarios. The direct approach would be to combine anchoring methods developed for two-group scenarios with multigroup DIF-detection methods. Alternatively, multiple tests could be carried out. The results of these tests need to be aggregated to determine the anchor for the final DIF analysis. In this study, the direct approach and three aggregation rules are investigated. All approaches are combined with a variety of anchoring methods, such as the "all-other purified" and "mean p-value threshold" methods, in two simulation studies based on the Rasch model. Our results indicate that the direct approach generally does not lead to more accurate or even to inferior results than the aggregation rules. The "min rule" overall shows the best trade-off between low false alarm rate and medium to high hit rate. However, it might be too sensitive when the number of groups is large. In this case, the "all rule" may be a good compromise. We also take a closer look at the anchor selection method "next candidate," which performed rather poorly, and suggest possible improvements. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01