The measurement equivalence of an English-language version of the Trier Personality Inventory (TPI) was evaluated, using statistical methods based on item response theory (IRT) to identity items that displayed differential item functioning (DIF). In Study 1, the TPI was administered to 295 American and 213 West German subjects. From among the 120 items tested, 11 DIF items were detected. A follow-up study using a new sample of 203 Americans was conducted to replicate the original study and to evaluate the post hoc explanation that translation error was the source of DIF for one item. DIF was replicated for 6 of the 11 DIF items found in Study 1, and DIF was eliminated for one item by retranslation. Overall, there was significant agreement between the DIF indexes found in Studies I and 2 for all 120 items analyzed. Some problems in replicating significant indexes of DIF are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Becker, P. (1988). Seelische Gesundheit und Verhaltenskontrolle: Zwei replizierbare, vananzstarke Persönlichkeitsfaktoren [Mental health and behavior control: TWo replicable, primary personality factors]. Zeitschrnft für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 9, 13-38.
2.
Becker, P. (1989). Der Trierer Persönlichkeitsfragebogen (TPF) Handanweisung [The Trier Personality Inventory (TPI) Manual]. Göttingen, West Germany: Hogrefe.
3.
Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring examinee's ability. In F. M. Lord & M. R. Novick, Statistical theories of mental test scores (pp. 397-497). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
4.
Candell, G. L. , & Hulin, C. L. (1987). Cross-language and cross-cultural comparisons in scale translations: Independent sources of information about item nonequivalence. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 417-440.
5.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276.
6.
Drasgow, F. (1987). Study of the measurement bias of two standardized psychological tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 19-29.
7.
Drasgow, F. (1989). An evaluation of marginal maximum likelihood estimation for the two-paramneter model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 77-90.
8.
Ellis, B. B. (1988). Hofstede's culture dimensions and Rokeach's values: How reliable is the relationship? In J. W. Berry & R. C. Annis (Eds.), Ethnic psychology: Research and practice
9.
Drasgow, F. (1989). An evaluation of marginal maximum likelihood estimation for the two-parameter model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 77-90.
10.
Ellis, B. B. (1988). Hofstede's culture dimensions and Rokeach's values: How reliable is the relationship? In J. W. Berry & R. C. Annis (Eds.), Ethnic psychology: Research and practice with immigrants, refugees, native peoples, ethnic groups, and sojourners (pp. 266-274). Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
11.
Ellis, B. B. (1989). Differential item functioning: Implications for test translations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 912-921.
12.
Ellis, B. B. , Minsel, B., & Becker, P. (1989). Evaluation of attitude survey translations: An investigation using item response theory. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 665-684.
13.
Eysenck, H. J. , & Eysenck, S.B.G. (1975) Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
14.
Fahrenberg, J. , Hampel, R., & Selg, H. (1984). Das Freiburger Persönlichkeitsinventar FPI Revidierte Fassung FPI-R und teitweise geanderte Fassung FPI-AI. Handanweisung. 4. revidierte Auflage rlThe Freiburger Personality Inventory, FPI, revised version, FPI-R, and partially modified, FPI-Al. Manual. 4th edition]. Gottingen, West Germany: Hogrefe.
15.
Gehring, A. , & Blaser, A. (1982). MinnesotaMultiphasic Personality Inventory: MMPI Deutsche Kurtzform für Handauswertung. Handbuch (Minesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory: MMPI. German short form for hand scoring. Handbook]. Bern: Huber.
16.
Goldstein, H. , & Wood, R. (1989). Five decades of item response modeling. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 42, 139-167.
17.
Hambleton, R. K. (1989). Constructing tests with item response models: A discussion of a method and two problems. Buletin of the International Test Commission, 29, 96-106.
18.
Hambleton, R. K. , & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
19.
Holland, P. W. , & Thayer, D. T. (1986, April). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisoo, CA.
20.
Holland, P. W. , & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129-145). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum.
21.
Hulin, C. L. (1987). A psychometric theory of evaluations of item and scale translations: Fidelity across languages. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 115-142.
22.
Hulin, C. L. , Drasgow, F., & Komocar, J. (1982). Applications of item response theory to analysis of scale translations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 818-825.
23.
Hulin, C. L. , Drasgow, F., & Parsons, C. K. (1983). Item response theory: Applications to psychological measurement. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones Irwin.
24.
Hulin, C. L. , & Mayer, L. J. (1986). Psychometric equivalence of a translation of the Job Descriptive Index into Hebrew. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 83-94.
25.
Lim, R. G. , & Drasgow, F. (1990). Evaluation of two methods for estimating item response theory parameters when assessing differential item functioning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 164-174.
26.
Lord, F. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum.
27.
Lord, F. M. , & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
28.
McLaughlin, M. E. , & Drasgow, F. (1987). Lord's chi-square test of item bias with estimated and with known person parameters. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11, 161-173.
29.
Stocking, M. L. , & Lord, F. M. (1983). Developing a common metric in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 201-210.
30.
Stumpf, H. , Angleitner, A., Wieck, T., Jackson, D., & Beloch-Till, H. (1984). Deutsche Personality Research Form (PRF). Gottingen, West Germany: Hogrefe.
31.
Thissen, D. (1988). MULTILOG user's guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
32.
Thissen, D. , & Steinberg, L. (1988). Data analysis using item response theoryPsychological Bulletin, 104, 385-395.
33.
Thissen, D. , Steinberg, L., & Gerrard, M. (1986). Beyond group mean differences: The concept of item bias. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 118-181.
34.
Thissen, D. , Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1988). Use of item response theory in the study of group difference in trace lines. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 147-170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
Thissen, D. , Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1989, September). Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. Paper presented at the Differential Item Functioning Conference, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.
