Differential item functioning (DIF) has been informally conceptualized as multidimensionality. Recently, more formal descriptions of DIF as multidimensionality have become available in the item response theory literature. This approach assumes that DIF is not a difference in the item parameters of two groups; rather, it is a shift in the distribution of ability along a secondary trait that influences the probability of a correct item response. That is, one group is relatively more able on an ability such as test-wiseness. The parameters of the secondary distribution are confounded with item parameters by unidimensional DIF detection models, and this manifests as differences between estimated item parameters. However, DIF is con founded with impact in multidimensional tests, which may be a serious limitation of unidimen sional detection methods in some situations. In the multidimensional approach, DIF is considered to be a function of the educational histories of the examinees. Thus, a better tool for unde...

A Conceptual Analysis of Differential Item Functioning in Terms of a Multidimensional Item Response Model

(1993). Assessing Group Differences. Oxford Review of Education: Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 141-150.

/pdf/assessing-group-differences-33o88g2ax4.pdf

Assessing Group Differences

This study examined the reliability of the Mantel-Haenszel indexes across different samples of test takers as well as across sample sizes and investigated whether these indexes are robust to item context effects. Mathematics data from the Second International Mathematics Study (SIMS; 1985) for U.S. eighth-grade students were analyzed. The results suggest that the MH D-DIF is robust to item context effects. However, larger sample sizes than those used in this investigation (N = 141-167 for the focal group) may be necessary to obtain stable estimates from the Mantel-Haenszel procedure.

The Performance of the Mantel‐Haenszel Procedure Across Samples and Matching Criteria

Why should we be concerned about “physics envy” as a feature of our approach to educational measurement? What are some limitations of current measurement models? Why should there be greater public participation in decisions regarding testing?

Recontextualizing Mental Measurement.

The impact of courts on teacher competence testing

In a second response to J. Patrick Rooney, the author counters Mr. Rooney's criticisms and defends the role of Educational Testing Service on the test bias issue.

ETS Replies to Golden Rule on “Golden Rule”

In this response to “Golden Rule on ‘Golden Rule,’” Greg Anrig reasserts his position that the “Golden Rule settlement” was a mistake. He argues that its application in Illinois has not improved the passing rate for black candidates relative to white candidates and that it has inappropriately been used as a precedent for proposed legislature mandates in other states.

Gregory R. Anrig

Papers

ETS Replies to Golden Rule on “Golden Rule”

ETS on “Golden Rule”