Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T12:41:47.134Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Examining Differential Item Functioning Due to Item Difficulty and Alternative Attractiveness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Paul Westers  and
Henk Kelderman
Paul Westers*
Affiliation:
University of Twente
Henk Kelderman
Affiliation:
University of Twente
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Paul Westers, University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, THE NETHERLANDS.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A method for analyzing test item responses is proposed to examine differential item functioning (DIF) in multiple-choice items through a combination of the usual notion of DIF, for correct/incorrect responses and information about DIF contained in each of the alternatives. The proposed method uses incomplete latent class models to examine whether DIF is caused by the attractiveness of the alternatives, difficulty of the item, or both. DIF with respect to either known or unknown subgroups can be tested by a likelihood ratio test that is asymptotically distributed as a chi-square random variable.

Keywords

differential item functioningmultiple choice itemsRasch modelguessing modelincomplete latent class modelgoodness-of-fit testing

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , March 1992 , pp. 107 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baker, F. B. (1977). Advances in item analysis. Review of Educational Research, 47, 151–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berk, R. A. (1982). Handbook of methods for detecting test bias, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Binet, A., Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in children, Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
Bishop, Y. M. M., Fienberg, S. E., Holland, P. W. (1975). Discrete multivariate analysis, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bock, R. D. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent proficiency when the responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika, 37, 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clogg, C. C. (1981). Latent structure models of mobility. American Journal of Sociology, 86, 836–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cressie, N., Holland, P. W. (1983). Characterising the manifest probabilities of latent trait models. Psychometrika, 48, 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggen, T. J. H. M., Pelgrum, W. J., Plomp, Tj. (1987). The implemented and attained mathematics curriculum: Some results of the second international mathematics study in the Netherlands. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 13, 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, L. A. (1978). Analyzing qualitative/categorical data: Loglinear models and latent structure analysis, London: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Green, B. F., Crone, C. R., Folk, V. G. (1989). A method for studying differential distractor functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haberman, S. J. (1979). Analysis of qualitative data: New developments, Vol. 2, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hagenaars, J., Luijkx, R. (1987). LCAG: latent-class models and other loglinear models with latent variables, Tilburg: Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. (1986). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel statistic. aper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Kelderman, H. (1984). Loglinear Rasch model tests. Psychometrika, 49, 223–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelderman, H. (1988). An IRT model for item responses that are subject to omission and/or intrusion errors, Enschede: University of Twente.Google Scholar
Kelderman, H. (1989). Item bias detection using loglinear IRT. Psychometrika, 54, 681–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelderman, H., Macready, G. B. (1990). The use of loglinear models for assessing differential item functioning across manifest and latent examinee groups. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 307–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelderman, H., & Steen, R. (1988). LOGIMO I: Loglinear item response theory modeling. Computer manual, University of Twente, Department of Educational Technology.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Henry, N. W. (1968). Latent structure analysis, Boston: Houghton-Miffin.Google Scholar
Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McHugh, R. B. (1956). Efficient estimation and local identification in latent-class analysis. Psychometrika, 21, 331–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellenbergh, G. J. (1982). Contingency table methods for assessing item bias. Journal of Educational Statistics, 7, 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mislevy, R. J., Verhelst, N. (1990). Modeling item responses when different subjects employ different solutions strategies. Psychometrika, 55, 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthén, B., Lehman, J. (1985). Multiple group IRT modeling: Applications to item bias analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 10, 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osterlind, S. J. (1983). Test item bias, Beverly Hills: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rudner, L. M., Getson, P. R., Knight, D. L. (1980). Biased item detection techniques. Journal of Educational Statistics, 5, 213–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheuneman, J. (1979). A method of assessing bias in test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 16, 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., Fitzpatrick, A. R. (1989). Multiple choice models: The distractors are also part of the item. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (in press). Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning: Theory and practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Veale, J. R., Foreman, D. I. (1983). Assessing cultural bias using foil response data: cultural variation. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, B. D., Mead, R. J., Draba, R. (1975). Detecting and correcting test item bias with a logistic response model, Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Education, Statistical Laboratory.Google Scholar