Using Mixed Methods to Interpret Differential Item Functioning

References

• Allalouf, A. (2003). Revising translated differential item functioning items as a tool for improving cross-lingual assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 16(1), 55–73. doi:10.1207/S15324818AME1601_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allalouf, A., Hambleton, R. K., & Sireci, S. G. (1999). Identifying the causes of DIF in translated verbal items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36(3), 185–198. doi:10.1111/jedm.1999.36.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benitez, I., & Padilla, J.-L. (2014). Analysis of nonequivalent assessments across different linguistic groups using a mixed methods approach: Understanding the causes of differential item functioning by cognitive interviewing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 8(1), 52–68. doi:10.1177/1558689813488245
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Cole, N. S., & Zieky, M. J. (2001). The new faces of fairness. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38(4), 369–382. doi:10.1111/jedm.2001.38.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crede, E., & Borrego, M. (2013). From ethnography to items: A mixed methods approach to developing a survey to examine graduate engineering student retention. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(1), 62–80. doi:10.1177/1558689812451792
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (1995). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• DeMars, C. E. (2011). An analytic comparison of effect sizes for differential item functioning. Applied Measurement in Education, 24(3), 189–209. doi:10.1080/08957347.2011.580255
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elosua, P., & López-Jaúregui, A. (2007). Potential sources of differential item functioning in the adaptation of tests. International Journal of Testing, 7(1), 39–52. doi:10.1080/15305050709336857
   Google Scholar
• Ercikan, K., Arim, R., Law, D., Domene, J., Gagnon, F., & Lacroix, S. (2010). Application of think aloud protocols for examining and confirming sources of differential item functioning identified by expert reviews. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29(2), 24–35. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2010.00173.x
   Google Scholar
• Ferne, T., & Rupp, A. A. (2007). A synthesis of 15 years of research on DIF in language testing: Methodological advances, challenges, and recommendations. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4, 113–148. doi:10.1080/15434300701375923
   Google Scholar
• Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2011). Investigating the substantive aspect of construct validity for the satisfaction with life scale adapted for children: A focus on cognitive processes. Social Indicators Research, 100, 37–60. doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9603-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Hambleton, R. K. (2006). Good practices for identifying differential item functioning. Medical Care, 44(Suppl 3), S182–S188. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000245443.86671.c4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hidalgo, M. D., & Gómez-Benito, J. (2003). Test purification and the evaluation of differential item functioning with multinomial logistic regression. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19, 1–11. doi:10.1027//1015-5759.19.1.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hidalgo, M. D., & Gómez-Benito, J. (2010). Education measurement: Differential item functioning. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• International Test Commission (2010). International Test Commission guidelines for translating and adapting tests. Retrieved from http://www.intestcom.org
   Google Scholar
• Jodoin, M. G., & Gierl, M. J. (2001). Evaluating Type I error and power rates using an effect size measure with the logistic regression procedure for DIF detection. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 329–349. doi:10.1207/S15324818AME1404_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Kramer, J. M. (2011). Using mixed methods to establish the social validity of a self-report assessment: An illustration using the Child Occupational Self-Assessment (COSA). Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(1), 52–76. doi:10.1177/1558689810386376
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, T. R., & Spray, J. A. (1993). Logistic discriminant function analysis for DIF identification of polytomously scored items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(2), 107–122. doi:10.1111/jedm.1993.30.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millsap, R. E., & Everson, H. T. (1993). Methodology review: Statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 297–334. doi:10.1177/014662169301700401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2013). OECD skills outlook 2013: First results from the survey of adult skills. OECD Publishing, doi:10.1787/9789264204256-en.
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2006). PISA 2006 database. Retrieved from http://pisa2006.acer.edu.au/
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2014). PISA 2012 results: Students and money: Financial literacy skills for the 21st century. PISA, OECD Publishing, VI doi:10.1787/9789264208094-en
   Google Scholar
• Padilla, J.-L., Benítez, I., & Castillo, M. (2013). Obtaining validity evidence by cognitive interviewing to interpret psychometric results. Methodology, 9(3), 113–122. doi:10.1027/1614-2241/a000073
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penfield, R. D. (2005). DIFAS: Differential Item Functioning Analysis System. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 150–151. doi:10.1177/0146621603260686
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penfield, R. D. (2007). An approach for categorizing DIF in polytomous items. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(3), 335–355. doi:10.1080/08957340701431435
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penfield, R. D. (2010). Distinguishing between net and global DIF in polytomous items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 47, 129–149. doi:10.1111/(ISSN)1745-3984
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penfield, R. D., & Algina, J. (2003). Applying the Liu-Agresti estimator of the cumulative common odds ratio to DIF detection in polytomous items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40, 353–370. doi:10.1111/jedm.2003.40.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penfield, R. D., Alvarez, K., & Lee, O. (2009a). Using a taxonomy of differential step functioning to improve the interpretation of DIF in polytomous items: An illustration. Applied Measurement in Education, 22(1), 61–78. doi:10.1080/08957340802558367
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penfield, R. D., Gattamorta, K., & Childs, R. A. (2009b). An NCME instructional module on using differential step functioning to refine the analysis of DIF in polytomous items. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28, 38–49. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.01135.x
   Google Scholar
• Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bottomley, A., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., … Sprangers, M. A. G. (2009). A simulation study provided sample size guidance for differential item functioning (DIF) studies using short scales. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62, 288–295. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sireci, S. G., Patsula, L., & Hambleton, R. K. (2005). Statistical methods for identifying flaws in the test adaptation process. In R. K. Hambleton, P. F. Merenda, & S. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 93–115). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• SPSS Inc. (2007). SPSS-16 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Zieky, M. (1993). Practical questions in the use of DIF statistics in test development. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 337–347). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of Differential Item Functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (Ordinal) item scores. Ottawa, ON: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.
   Google Scholar