Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Assesses differential item functioning using standardization in educational tests, indicating implications for test fairness.
The standardization approach to comprehensive differential item functioning (Cdif) is described and contrasted with the log‐linear approach to differential distractor functioning explicated by Green, Crone, and Folk (1989) and with the IRT‐based approach to differential alternative functioning explicated by Thissen, Steinberg, and Wainer (1992). This descriptive approach is used routinely as an adjunct to Mantel‐Haenszel differential item functioning (DIP) detection (Dorans & Holland, 1992) in many operational testing programs at the Educational Testing Service. Data from an edition of the SAT are used to illustrate how the standardization approach to Cdif could be used to uncover differential speededness. Speculations about the sources of differential speededness for Black examinees and Hispanic examinees are offered, and some implications of the existence of differential speededness for DIP detection are mentioned.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dorans et al. (1992) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: