不同项目功能检测方法的有效性比较

IF 0.8 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Münevver Başman
{"title":"不同项目功能检测方法的有效性比较","authors":"Münevver Başman","doi":"10.21449/ijate.1135368","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To ensure the validity of the tests is to check that all items have similar results across different groups of individuals. However, differential item functioning (DIF) occurs when the results of individuals with equal ability levels from different groups differ from each other on the same test item. Based on Item Response Theory and Classic Test Theory, there are some methods, with different advantages and limitations to identify items that show DIF. This study aims to compare the performances of five methods for detecting DIF. The efficacies of Mantel-Haenszel (MH), Logistic Regression (LR), Crossing simultaneous item bias test (CSIBTEST), Lord's chi-square (LORD), and Raju's area measure (RAJU) methods are examined considering conditions of the sample size, DIF ratio, and test length. In this study, to compare the detection methods, power and Type I error rates are evaluated using a simulation study with 100 replications conducted for each condition. Results show that LR and MH have the lowest Type I error and the highest power rate in detecting uniform DIF. In addition, CSIBTEST has a similar power rate to MH and LR. Under DIF conditions, sample size, DIF ratio, test length and their interactions affect Type I error and power rates.","PeriodicalId":42417,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of the efficacies of differential item functioning detection methods\",\"authors\":\"Münevver Başman\",\"doi\":\"10.21449/ijate.1135368\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To ensure the validity of the tests is to check that all items have similar results across different groups of individuals. However, differential item functioning (DIF) occurs when the results of individuals with equal ability levels from different groups differ from each other on the same test item. Based on Item Response Theory and Classic Test Theory, there are some methods, with different advantages and limitations to identify items that show DIF. This study aims to compare the performances of five methods for detecting DIF. The efficacies of Mantel-Haenszel (MH), Logistic Regression (LR), Crossing simultaneous item bias test (CSIBTEST), Lord's chi-square (LORD), and Raju's area measure (RAJU) methods are examined considering conditions of the sample size, DIF ratio, and test length. In this study, to compare the detection methods, power and Type I error rates are evaluated using a simulation study with 100 replications conducted for each condition. Results show that LR and MH have the lowest Type I error and the highest power rate in detecting uniform DIF. In addition, CSIBTEST has a similar power rate to MH and LR. Under DIF conditions, sample size, DIF ratio, test length and their interactions affect Type I error and power rates.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42417,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1135368\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1135368","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为了确保测试的有效性,需要检查所有项目在不同人群中的结果是否相似。然而,当来自不同组的具有相同能力水平的个体在同一测试项目上的结果彼此不同时,就会出现差异项目功能(DIF)。基于项目反应理论和经典测试理论,有一些方法可以识别出DIF项目,但有不同的优点和局限性。本研究旨在比较五种检测DIF的方法的性能。在考虑样本量、DIF比率和测试长度的条件下,检验了Mantel-Haenszel(MH)、Logistic回归(LR)、交叉同时项目偏差测试(CSIBTEST)、Lord卡方(Lord)和Raju面积测量(Raju)方法的有效性。在本研究中,为了比较检测方法,使用模拟研究评估了功率和I型错误率,对每种情况进行了100次重复。结果表明,LR和MH在检测均匀DIF时具有最低的I型误差和最高的功率率。此外,CSIBTEST具有与MH和LR相似的功率率。在DIF条件下,样本大小、DIF比率、测试长度及其相互作用会影响I型误差和功率率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Comparison of the efficacies of differential item functioning detection methods
To ensure the validity of the tests is to check that all items have similar results across different groups of individuals. However, differential item functioning (DIF) occurs when the results of individuals with equal ability levels from different groups differ from each other on the same test item. Based on Item Response Theory and Classic Test Theory, there are some methods, with different advantages and limitations to identify items that show DIF. This study aims to compare the performances of five methods for detecting DIF. The efficacies of Mantel-Haenszel (MH), Logistic Regression (LR), Crossing simultaneous item bias test (CSIBTEST), Lord's chi-square (LORD), and Raju's area measure (RAJU) methods are examined considering conditions of the sample size, DIF ratio, and test length. In this study, to compare the detection methods, power and Type I error rates are evaluated using a simulation study with 100 replications conducted for each condition. Results show that LR and MH have the lowest Type I error and the highest power rate in detecting uniform DIF. In addition, CSIBTEST has a similar power rate to MH and LR. Under DIF conditions, sample size, DIF ratio, test length and their interactions affect Type I error and power rates.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education
International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
自引率
11.10%
发文量
40
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信