Standart MIMIC ve Arınık Çapa Maddeli MIMIC Yöntemleriyle Gerçekleştirilen DMF Çalışması

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı değişen madde fonksiyonu (DMF) belirleme yöntemlerinden standart MIMIC (M-ST) ve arınık çapa maddeli MIMIC (M-AÇM) yöntemlerinin benzerlik ve farklılıklarını belirlemektir. Araştırma PISA 2012 verileri ile 900 ve 450 kişilik örneklemler üzerinde referans-odak grup oranları 550/350, 450/450, 300/150, 225/225 olacak şekilde yürütülmüştür. M-ST ve M-AÇM yöntemleri ile belirlenen DMF’li maddeler karşılaştırıldığında, tüm koşullarda M-AÇM yöntemiyle daha az sayıda DMF’li madde belirlendiği görülmüştür. 26 nolu maddenin tüm koşullarda her iki DMF belirleme yöntemiyle de DMF gösterdiği belirlenmiştir. En çok DMF’li madde sayısının M-ST yönteminde 900 kişilik örneklem büyüklüğü için referans-odak oranı 550/350 olduğunda ortaya çıktığı görülmüştür.

Keywords

• Standart MIMIC
• arınık çapa maddeli MIMIC
• DMF

A DIF Study by using Standard MIMIC and MIMIC With a Pure Anchor

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the similarities and differences between standard MIMIC (M-ST) and MIMIC with a pure anchor (M-PA) methods, which are differential item function (DIF) determination methods. The research was conducted on samples of 900 and 450 people, with reference-focus group ratios of 550/350, 450/450, 300/150, 225/225. When the items with DIF determined by the M-ST and M-PA methods were compared, it was seen that fewer DIF items were determined by the M-PA method in all conditions. It was seen that item 26 showed DIF in all conditions with both DIF determination methods. It was observed that the highest number of items with DIF occurred when the reference-focus ratio was 550/350 for a sample of 900 people in the M-ST method.

Keywords

• MIMIC
• MIMIC with a pure anchor
• DIF

References

1. Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. London: Sage.
2. Clauser, B., & Mazor, K. (1998). Using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning test items. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 31-44. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1998.tb00619.x
3. Dorans, N. J., & Holland, P. W. (1993). DIF detection and description: Mantel-Haenszel and standardization. In P. W. Holland, & H. Wainer, Differential Item Functioning (s. 35-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Finch, H. (2005). The MIMIC model as a method for detecting DIF: Comparison with Mantel-Haenszel, SIBTEST, and the IRT likelihood ratio. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 278-295. doi: 10.1177/0146621605275728
5. Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London: SAGE.
6. Gallo, J. J., Anthony, J. C., & Muthen, B. O. (1994). Age differences in the symptoms of depression: A latent trait analysis. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 49, P251-P264. doi: 10.1093/geronj/49.6.p251
7. Hallquist, M. N. & Wiley, J. F. (2018). MplusAutomation: An R package for faciliting large-scale latent variable analyses in mplus. Structural Equation Modelling, 25, 621-638. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2017.1402334.
8. Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer, & H. I. Braun (Eds.). Test validity, 129- 145. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

9. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (1998, 2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén
11. OECD (2023), “What is PISA?”, in PISA 2022 Assessment and Analytical Framework, OECD Publishing, Paris. doi: https://doi.org/10.1787/82f078d7-en
12. OECD (2010). Translation and adaptation guidelines for PISA 2012. Budapeşte: OECD Publishing.
13. Oort, F. J. (1998). Simulation study of item bias detection with restricted factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 5, 107-124.
14. Shealy, R. & Stout, W. (1993). A model-based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from group ability differences and detects test bias/DTF as well as bias/DIF. Psychometrika, 58(2), 159-194. doi:10.1007/BF02294572
15. Shih, C.-L. & Wang,W.-C.(2009).Differential item functioning detection using the multiple indicators, multiple causes MIMIC method with a pure short anchor. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 184-199. doi: 10.1177/0146621608321758
16. Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic resgression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(4), 361-370.
17. Tamcı, P. (2018). Kayıp Veriyle Başa Çıkma Yöntemlerinin Değişen Madde Fonksiyonu Üzerindeki Etkisinin İncelenmesi (Yüksek lisans tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi , Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
18. Wainer, H., Sireci, S., & Thissen, D. (1991). Differential testlet functioning: Definitions and detection. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 197-219.
19. Wang, W.-C., & Yeh, Y.-L. (2003). Effects of anchor item methods on differential item functioning detection with the likelihood ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 479-498. doi: 10.1177/0146621603259902
20. Wang, W.-C. (2004). Effects of anchor item methods on the detection of differential item functioning within the family of Rasch models. Journal of Experimental Education, 72, 221-261. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.72.3.221-261
21. Wang, W.-C., Shih, C.-L., & Yang, C.-C. (2009). The MIMIC method with scale purification for detecting differential item functioning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(5), 713-731. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409332228
22. Wang, W. C., & Shih, C. L. (2010). MIMIC methods for assessing differential item functioning in polytomous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34(3), 166–180. doi: 10.1177/0146621609355279
23. Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and likert-type (ordinal) item scores. Ottowa, ON: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense