Evaluation of MIMIC-Model Methods for DIF Testing with Comparison to Two-Group Analysis

Autor/in	Woods, Carol M.
Titel	Evaluation of MIMIC-Model Methods for DIF Testing with Comparison to Two-Group Analysis
Quelle	In: Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44 (2009) 1, S.1-27 (27 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0027-3171
Schlagwörter	Test Bias; Structural Equation Models; Item Response Theory; Testing; Sample Size; Comparative Analysis; Simulation; Questionnaires; Undergraduate Students; White Students; African American Students; North Carolina + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Testkritik; Item-Response-Theorie; Testdurchführung; Testen; Simulation program; Simulationsprogramm; Fragebogen; African Americans; Student; Students; Afroamerikaner; Schüler; Schülerin; Studentin
Abstract	Differential item functioning (DIF) occurs when an item on a test or questionnaire has different measurement properties for 1 group of people versus another, irrespective of mean differences on the construct. This study focuses on the use of multiple-indicator multiple-cause (MIMIC) structural equation models for DIF testing, parameterized as item response models. The accuracy of these methods, and the sample size requirements, are not well established. This study examines the accuracy of MIMIC methods for DIF testing when the focal group is small and compares results with those obtained using 2-group item response theory (IRT). Results support the utility of the MIMIC approach. With small focal-group samples, tests of uniform DIF with binary or 5-category ordinal responses were more accurate with MIMIC models than 2-group IRT. Recommendations are offered for the application of MIMIC methods for DIF testing. (Contains 6 figures, 4 tables and 1 footnote.) (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Psychology Press. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10