Three multiple indicators—multiple causes (MIMIC) methods, namely, the standard MIMIC method (M-ST), the MIMIC method with scale purification (M-SP), and the MIMIC method with a pure anchor (M-PA), were developed to assess differential item functioning (DIF) in polytomous items. In a series of simulations, it appeared that all three methods yielded a well-controlled Type I error rate when tests did not contain any DIF items. M-ST and M-SP began to yield an inflated Type I error rate and a deflated power when tests contained 10% and 20% DIF items, respectively. M-PA maintained an expected Type I error rate and a high power even when tests contained as many as 40% DIF items. An iterative MIMIC procedure was proposed to select a small set of DIF-free items to serve as the anchor in M-PA. It was found in a series of simulations that this procedure yielded a very high rate of accuracy. Two simulated data sets were then analyzed to show applications of these MIMIC methods for DIF assessment in polytomous items.
Ankenmann, R.D., Witt, E.A., & Dunbar, S.B. ( 1999). An investigation of the power of the likelihood ratio goodness-of-fit statistic in detecting differential item functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 277-300.
2.
Birnbaum, A. ( 1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee’s ability. In F. M. Lord & M. R. Novick (Eds.), Statistical theories of mental test scores (pp. 397-424). Reading, MA : Addison-Wesley.
3.
Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. ( 1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
4.
Chang, H.-H., Mazzeo, J., & Roussos, J. ( 1996). Detecting DIF for polytomously scored items: An adaptation of the SIBTEST procedure. Journal of Educational Measurement , 33, 333-353.
5.
Clauser, B., Mazor, K., & Hambleton, R.K. (1993). The effects of purification of the matching criterion on the identification of DIF using the Mantel–Haenszel procedure. Applied Measurement in Education, 6, 269-279.
6.
Finch, H. ( 2005). The MIMIC model as a method for detecting DIF: Comparison with Mantel-Haenszel, SIBTEST, and the IRT likelihood ratio. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 278-295.
7.
French, B.F., & Maller, S.J. ( 2007). Iterative purification and effect size use with logistic regression for differential item functioning detection. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 373-393.
8.
González-Romá, V. , Hernández , A., & Gómez-Benito, J. ( 2006). Power and Type I error of the mean and covariance structure analysis model for detecting differential item functioning in graded response items. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, 29-53.
9.
Holland, W.P., & 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 Erlbaum.
Lord, F.M. ( 1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
Masters, G.N. ( 1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149-174.
13.
Meade, A.W., Lautenschlager, G.J., & Johnson, E.C. ( 2007). A Monte Carlo examination of the sensitivity of the differential functioning of items and tests framework for tests of measurement invariance with Likert data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31, 430-455.
14.
Muraki, E. ( 1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 159-176.
15.
Muthén, B.O., du Toit, S.H.C., & Spisic, D. ( 1997). Robust inference using weighted least squares and quadratic estimating equations in latent variable modeling with categorical and continuous outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/muthen/articles/Article_075.pdf
Navas-Ara, M.J., & Gómez-Benito, J. (2002). Effects of ability scale purification on identification of DIF. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 9-15.
18.
Penfield, R.D. ( 2007). Assessing differential step functioning in polytomous items using a common odds ratio estimator. Journal of Educational Measurement, 44, 187-210.
19.
Samejima, F. ( 1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, 17, 1-100.
20.
Shealy, R.T., & Stout, W.F. ( 1993). A model-biased standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from group ability differences and detects test bias/DTF as well as item bias/DIF. Psychometrika, 58, 159-194.
21.
Shih, C.-L., & Wang, W.-C. (2009). Differential item functioning detection using the multiple indicators, multiple causes MIMIC method with a pure short anchor . Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 184-199.
22.
Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O.S., & Drasgow, F. ( 2006). Detecting differential item functioning with confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Toward a unified strategy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1292-1306.
Su, Y.-H., & Wang, W.-C. ( 2005). Efficiency of the Mantel, generalized Mantel-Haenszel, and logistic discriminant function analysis methods in detecting differential item functioning for polytomous items. Applied Measurement in Education, 18, 313-350.
25.
Thissen, D. ( 2001). IRTLRDIF v.2.0b: Software for the computation of the statistics involved in item response theory likelihood-ratio tests for differential item functioning. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
26.
Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. ( 1988). Use of item response theory in the study of group differences in trace lines. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 147-169). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
Vandenberg, R.J., & Lance, C.E. ( 2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4-69.
28.
Wang, W.-C. ( 2004). Effects of anchor item methods on the detection of differential item functioning within the family of Rasch models. Journal of Experimental Education, 72, 221-261.
29.
Wang, W.-C. ( 2008). Assessment of differential item functioning. Journal of Applied Measurement, 9, 387-408.
30.
Wang, W.-C., Shih, C.-L., & Yang, C.-C. (2009). The MIMIC method with scale purification for detecting differential item functioning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 713-731.
31.
Wang, W.-C., & Su, Y.-H. ( 2004a). Effects of average signed area between two item characteristic curves and test purification procedures on the DIF detection via the Mantel-Haenszel method. Applied Measurement in Education, 17, 113-144.
32.
Wang, W.-C., & Su, Y.-H. ( 2004b). Factors influencing the Mantel and generalized Mantel-Haenszel methods for the assessment of differential item functioning in polytomous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28, 450-480.
33.
Wang, W.-C., & Yeh, Y.-L. (2003). Effects of anchor item methods on differential item functioning detection with the likelihood ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 479-498.
34.
Ware, J.E., & Sherbourne, C.D. (1992). The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473-483.
