This study examines the differential item functioning (DIF) of the English version and the Japanese-translated version of the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List—Revised (MAACL-R) using the logistic regression (LR) procedure. The results of the LR are supplemented by multiple group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA). A total of five items are consistently flagged as showing DIF by both methods and based on the effect size criteria set forth by Jodoin and Gierl. One item shows nonuniform DIF, whereas four items show uniform DIF. Elimination or modification of the items with DIF can facilitate the appropriate use of the Japanese MAACL-R, especially in cross-cultural studies.
Camilli, G., & Shepard, L.A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
4.
Glöckner-Rist, A., Hoijtink, H. (2003). The best of both worlds: Factor analysis of dichotomous data using item response theory and structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 544-565.
5.
Hambleton, R.K. (1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: A progress report. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10, 229-244.
6.
Hambleton, R.K. (2005). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. In R. K. Hambleton, P. F. Merenda , & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 3-38). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Hambleton, R.K., & Kanjee, A. (1995). Increasing the validity of cross-cultural assessments: Use of improved methods for test adaptations. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11, 147-157.
8.
Holland, P.W., & Thayer, D.T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. Baun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129-145). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
Holland, P.W., & Wainer, H. (1993). Di ferential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
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.
11.
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.
12.
Lei, P.W., Chen, S.Y., & Yu, L. (2006). Comparing methods of assessing differential item functioning in computerized adaptive testing environment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43(3), 245-264.
13.
Lubin, B., Swearngin, S.E., & Zuckerman, M. (1998). Research with the Multiple A fect Adjective Check List and the Multiple A fect Adjective Check List—Revised: 1960-1977 . San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
14.
Lubin, B., & Zuckerman, M. (1999). Manual for the Multiple A fect Adjective Check List—Revised (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service .
15.
Mazor, K.M., Kanjee, A., & Clauser, B.E. (1995). Using logistic regression and the Mantel-Haenszel with multiple ability estimates to detect differential item functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 131-144.
van de Vijver, F.J.R., & Poortinga, Y. (1997). Towards an integrated analysis of bias in cross-cultural assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 13, 29-37.
21.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1984). Cross-cultural convergence in the structure of mood: A Japanese replication and comparison with U.S. findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 127-144.
22.
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin,98, 219-235.
23.
Werner, O., & Campbell, D.T. (1970). Translating, working through interpreters, and the problem of decentering. In R. Naroll & R. Cohen (Eds.), A handbook of methods in cultural anthropology (pp. 398-420). New York: American Museum of History.
24.
Yasuda, T. (2004, July). Detecting translation errors in the Japanese version of the MAACL-R. Poster presented at the 112th Annual Convention of theAmerican Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI.
25.
Yasuda, T., Lubin, B., Kim, J., & Whitlock, R.V. (2003). The Japanese version of the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List—Revised: Development and validation . Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59, 93-109.
26.
Zuckerman, M., & Lubin, B. (1965). Manual for the Multiple A fect Adjective Check List. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
27.
Zuckerman, M., & Lubin, B. (1985). Manual for the Multiple A fect Adjective Check Lists (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA : Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
28.
Zumbo, B.D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of di ferential item functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (ordinal) item scores. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada : Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation , Department of National Defense.
