Applied Psychological Measurement

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here for more information on The Virtual Advisor

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Meade, A. W.
Right arrow Articles by Johnson, E. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 31, No. 5, 430-455 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0146621606297316

A Monte Carlo Examination of the Sensitivity of the Differential Functioning of Items and Tests Framework for Tests of Measurement Invariance With Likert Data

Adam W. Meade

North Carolina State University, awmeade{at}ncsu.edu

Gary J. Lautenschlager

The University of Georgia

Emily C. Johnson

North Carolina State University

This article highlights issues associated with the use of the differential functioning of items and tests (DFIT) methodology for assessing measurement invariance (or differential functioning) with Likert-type data. Monte Carlo analyses indicate relatively low sensitivity of the DFIT methodology for identifying differential item functioning (DIF) under some conditions of differential functioning with previously recommended significance values. The differential test functioning index was extremely insensitive to differential functioning under all study conditions. The authors recommend alternative noncompensatory DIF cutoff values used to evaluate the significance of DIF for different DIF effect sizes. Additionally, contrasts between polytomous and dichotomous data are drawn, and problems with determining measurement invariance at the scale, rather than item, level for Likert scale data are highlighted.

Key Words: measurement invariance • differential item functioning (DIF) • differential test functioning • differential functioning of items and tests (DFIT).


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?