Flip it: An exploratory (versus explanatory) sequential mixed methods design using Delphi and differential item functioning to evaluate item bias

Q2 Psychology
Kristin L.K. Koskey , Toni A. May , Yiyun “Kate” Fan , Dara Bright , Gregory Stone , Gabriel Matney , Jonathan D. Bostic
{"title":"Flip it: An exploratory (versus explanatory) sequential mixed methods design using Delphi and differential item functioning to evaluate item bias","authors":"Kristin L.K. Koskey ,&nbsp;Toni A. May ,&nbsp;Yiyun “Kate” Fan ,&nbsp;Dara Bright ,&nbsp;Gregory Stone ,&nbsp;Gabriel Matney ,&nbsp;Jonathan D. Bostic","doi":"10.1016/j.metip.2023.100117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The Delphi method has been adapted to inform item refinements in educational and psychological assessment development. An explanatory sequential mixed methods design using Delphi is a common approach to gain experts' insight into why items might have exhibited differential item functioning (DIF) for a sub-group, indicating <em>potential</em> item bias. Use of Delphi <em>before</em> quantitative field testing to screen for potential sources leading to item bias is lacking in the literature. An exploratory sequential design is illustrated as an additional approach using a Delphi technique in Phase I and Rasch DIF analyses in Phase II. We introduce the 2 × 2 Concordance Integration Typology as a systematic way to examine agreement and disagreement across the qualitative and quantitative findings using a concordance joint display table. A worked example from the development of the Problem-Solving Measures Grades 6–8 Computer Adaptive Tests supported using an exploratory sequential design to inform item refinement. The 2 × 2 Concordance Integration Typology (a) crystallized instances where additional refinements were potentially needed and (b) provided for evaluating the distribution of bias across the set of items as a whole. Implications are discussed for advancing data integration techniques and using mixed methods to improve instrument development.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93338,"journal":{"name":"Methods in Psychology (Online)","volume":"8 ","pages":"Article 100117"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Methods in Psychology (Online)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590260123000085","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Delphi method has been adapted to inform item refinements in educational and psychological assessment development. An explanatory sequential mixed methods design using Delphi is a common approach to gain experts' insight into why items might have exhibited differential item functioning (DIF) for a sub-group, indicating potential item bias. Use of Delphi before quantitative field testing to screen for potential sources leading to item bias is lacking in the literature. An exploratory sequential design is illustrated as an additional approach using a Delphi technique in Phase I and Rasch DIF analyses in Phase II. We introduce the 2 × 2 Concordance Integration Typology as a systematic way to examine agreement and disagreement across the qualitative and quantitative findings using a concordance joint display table. A worked example from the development of the Problem-Solving Measures Grades 6–8 Computer Adaptive Tests supported using an exploratory sequential design to inform item refinement. The 2 × 2 Concordance Integration Typology (a) crystallized instances where additional refinements were potentially needed and (b) provided for evaluating the distribution of bias across the set of items as a whole. Implications are discussed for advancing data integration techniques and using mixed methods to improve instrument development.

翻转:一种探索性(与解释性)顺序混合方法设计,使用Delphi和差异项目功能来评估项目偏差
德尔菲法已适应告知项目细化教育和心理评估的发展。使用德尔菲的解释性顺序混合方法设计是获得专家洞察为什么项目可能在子组中表现出差异项目功能(DIF)的常见方法,表明潜在的项目偏差。文献中缺乏在定量实地测试前使用德尔菲来筛选导致项目偏倚的潜在来源。探索性顺序设计是在第一阶段使用德尔菲技术和在第二阶段使用Rasch DIF分析的附加方法。我们引入了2 × 2的一致性整合类型学,作为一种系统的方法,使用一致性联合显示表来检查定性和定量研究结果的一致性和不一致性。从问题解决措施6-8年级计算机适应性测试开发的一个工作示例支持使用探索性顺序设计来告知项目改进。2 × 2一致性整合类型学(a)明确了可能需要额外改进的实例,(b)提供了评估整个项目集偏差分布的方法。讨论了推进数据集成技术和使用混合方法来改进仪器开发的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Methods in Psychology (Online)
Methods in Psychology (Online) Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Clinical Psychology, Developmental and Educational Psychology
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信