An official website of the United States government
The Standards for educational and psychological assessment were developed by the American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education (AERA et al., 2014). The Standards specify assessment developers establish five types of validity evidence: test content, response processes, internal structure, relationship to other variables, and consequential/bias. Relevant to this proposal is consequential validity evidence that identifies the potential negative impact of testing or bias. Standard 3.1 of The Standards (2014) on fairness in testing states that “those responsible for test development, revision, and administration should design all steps of the testing process to promote valid score interpretations for intended score uses for the widest possible range of individuals and relevant sub-groups in the intended populations” (p. 63). Three types of bias include construct, method, and item bias (Boer et al., 2018). Testing for differential item functioning (DIF) is a standard analysis adopted to detect item bias against a subgroup (Boer et al., 2018). Example subgroups include gender, race/ethnic group, socioeconomic status, native language, or disability. DIF is when “equally able test takers differ in their probabilities answering a test item correctly as a function of group membership” (AERA et al., 2005, p. 51). DIF indicates systematic error as compared to real mean group differences (Camilli & Shepard, 1994). Items exhibiting significant DIF are removed or reviewed for sources leading to bias to determine modifications to retain and further test an item. The Delphi technique is an emergent systematic research method whereby expert panel members review item content through an iterative process (Yildirim & Büyüköztürk, 2018). Experts independently evaluate each item for potential sources leading to DIF, researchers group their responses, and experts then independently complete a survey to rate their level of agreement with the anonymously grouped responses. This process continues until saturation and consensus are reached among experts as established through some criterion (e.g., median agreement rating, item quartile range, and percent agreement). The technique allows researchers to “identify, learn, and share the ideas of experts by searching for agreement among experts” (Yildirim & Büyüköztürk, 2018, p. 451). Research has illustrated this technique applied after DIF is detected, but not before administering items in the field. The current research is a methodological illustration of the Delphi technique applied in the item construction phase of assessment development as part of a five-year study to develop and test new problem-solving measures (PSM; Bostic et al., 2015, 2017) for U.S.A. grades 6-8 in a computer adaptive testing environment. As part of an iterative design-science-based methodology (Middleton et al., 2008), we illustrate the integration of the Delphi technique into the item writing process. Results from two three-person panels each reviewing a set of 45 PSM items are utilized to illustrate the technique. Advantages and limitations identified through a survey by participating experts and researchers are outlined to advance the method.
more »
« less
Flip it: An exploratory (versus explanatory) sequential mixed methods design using Delphi and differential item functioning to evaluate item bias.
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.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2100988
- PAR ID:
- 10428384
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Methods in psychology
- Volume:
- 8
- ISSN:
- 2590-2601
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 100-117
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
This study investigated uniform differential item functioning (DIF) detection in response times. We proposed a regression analysis approach with both the working speed and the group membership as independent variables, and logarithm transformed response times as the dependent variable. Effect size measures such as Δ[Formula: see text] and percentage change in regression coefficients in conjunction with the statistical significance tests were used to flag DIF items. A simulation study was conducted to assess the performance of three DIF detection criteria: (a) significance test, (b) significance test with Δ[Formula: see text], and (c) significance test with the percentage change in regression coefficients. The simulation study considered factors such as sample sizes, proportion of the focal group in relation to total sample size, number of DIF items, and the amount of DIF. The results showed that the significance test alone was too strict; using the percentage change in regression coefficients as an effect size measure reduced the flagging rate when the sample size was large, but the effect was inconsistent across different conditions; using Δ R2with significance test reduced the flagging rate and was fairly consistent. The PISA 2018 data were used to illustrate the performance of the proposed method in a real dataset. Furthermore, we provide guidelines for conducting DIF studies with response time.more » « less
-
Differential item functioning (DIF) is often used to examine validity evidence of alternate form test accommodations. Unfortunately, traditional approaches for evaluating DIF are prone to selection bias. This article proposes a novel DIF framework that capitalizes on regression discontinuity design analysis to control for selection bias. A simulation study was performed to compare the new framework with traditional logistic regression, with respect to Type I error and power rates of the uniform DIF test statistics and bias and root mean square error of the corresponding effect size estimators. The new framework better controlled the Type I error rate and demonstrated minimal bias but suffered from low power and lack of precision. Implications for practice are discussed.more » « less
-
When measuring academic skills among students whose primary language is not English, standardized assessments are often provided in languages other than English. The degree to which alternate-language test translations yield unbiased, equitable assessment must be evaluated; however, traditional methods of investigating measurement equivalence are susceptible to confounding group differences. The primary purposes of this study were to investigate differential item functioning (DIF) and item bias across Spanish and English forms of an assessment of early mathematics skills. Secondary purposes were to investigate the presence of selection bias and demonstrate a novel approach for investigating DIF that uses a regression discontinuity design framework to control for selection bias. Data were drawn from 1,750 Spanish-speaking Kindergarteners participating in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–1999, who were administered either the Spanish or English version of the mathematics assessment based on their performance on an English language screening measure. Evidence of selection bias—differences between groups in SES, age, approaches to learning, self-control, social interaction, country of birth, childcare, household composition and number in the home, books in the home, and parent involvement—highlighted limitations of a traditional approach for investigating DIF that only controlled for ability. When controlling for selection bias, only 11% of items displayed DIF, and subsequent examination of item content did not suggest item bias. Results provide evidence that the Spanish translation of the ECLS-K mathematics assessment is an equitable and unbiased assessment accommodation for young dual language learners.more » « less
-
It is well established that access to social supports is essential for engineering students’ persistence and yet access to supports varies across groups. Understanding the differential supports inherent in students’ social networks and then working to provide additional needed supports can help the field of engineering education become more inclusive of all students. Our work contributes to this effort by examing the reliability and fairness of a social capital instrument, the Undergraduate Supports Survey (USS). We examined the extent to which two scales were reliable across ability levels (level of social capital), gender groups and year-in-school. We conducted two item response theory (IRT) models using a graded response model and performed differential item functioning (DIF) tests to detect item differences in gender and year-in-school. Our results indicate that most items have acceptable to good item discrimination and difficulty. DIF analysis shows that multiple items report DIF across gender groups in the Expressive Support scale in favor of women and nonbinary engineering students. DIF analysis shows that year-in-school has little to no effect on items, with only one DIF item. Therefore, engineering educators can use the USS confidently to examine expressive and instrumental social capital in undergraduates across year-in-school. Our work can be used by the engineering education research community to identify and address differences in students’ access to support. We recommend that the engineering education community works to be explicit in their expressive and instrumental support. Future work will explore the measurement invariance in Expressive Support items across gender.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2023.100117
