Abstract
Item bias and Differential Item Functioning (DIF) research has been linked to the history of validity theory since it was first introduced. Forty years of research have provided a great arsenal of statistical methods, but few consolidated results on DIF causes. We argue for conducting DIF validation studies within a mixed methods research framework not just to identify DIF causes, but also to understand group differences in response processes and validation. In the chapter, we first introduce the main characteristics of mixed methods studies. Secondly, we present a general framework to conduct DIF mixed methods studies looking at response processes as source of validity evidence. Finally, the research framework is illustrated by a study case of mixed methods DIF study.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Bazeley, P. (2012). Integrative analysis Strategies for mixed data sources. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 814–828.
Benítez, I., & Padilla, J. L. (2014). Analysis of non-equivalent assessments across different linguistic groups using a mixed methods approach: Understanding the causes of differential item functioning by cognitive interviewing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 8(1), 52–68.
Benítez, I., Padilla, J. L., Hidalgo, M. D., & Sireci, S. (2015). Using mixed methods to interpret differential item functioning. Applied Measurement in Education, 29(1), 1–16.
Bryman, A. (1988). Quality and quantity in social research. London: Routledge.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.
Creswell, J. W. (1995). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, W. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, W. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Tashakkori, A. (2007). Editorial: Developing publishable mixed methods manuscripts. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 107111.
Elosúa, P., & López-Jaúregui, A. (2007). Potential sources of differential item functioning in the adaptation of tests. International Journal of Testing, 7(1), 39–52.
Embretson, (Whitely) S. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletin, 93(1), 179–197.
Ercikan, K., Arim, R., Law, D., Domene, J., Gagnon, F., & Lacroix, S. (2010). Application of think aloud protocols for examining and confirming sources of differential item functioning identified by expert reviews. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29(2), 24–35.
Ferne, T., & Rupp, A. A. (2007). A synthesis of 15 years of research on DIF in language testing: Methodological advances, challenges, and recommendations. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(2), 113–148.
Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6), 2134–2156.
Fetters, M. D., & Freshwater, D. (2015). Publishing a methodological mixed methods research article. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(3), 203–213.
Gorard, S., & Symonds, J. (2010). Death of mixed methods? Or the rebirth of research as a craft. Evaluation and Research in Education, 236(2), 121–136.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.
Hambleton, R. K. (2006). Good practice for identifying differential item functioning. Medical Care, 44(11), S182–S188.
Hidalgo, M. D., Benítez, I., Padilla, J. L., & Gómez-Benito, J. (2015). How much polytomous item bias make total-group survey score comparisons invalid? Sociological Methods and Research 1–19.
Hidalgo, M. D., & Gómez-Benito, J. (2010). Education measurement: Differential item functioning. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopaedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 36–44). Oxford, UK: Academic Press.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73.
Maddox, B., Zumbo, B. D., Tay-Lim, B., & Qu, D. (2015). An anthropologist among the psychometricians: Assessment events, ethnography, and differential item functioning in the Mongolian Gobi. International Journal of Testing, 15(4), 291–309.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York: MacMillan.
Millsap, R. E., & Everson, H. T. (1993). Methodology review: Statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17(4), 297–334.
OECD (2006). Database - PISA 2006. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/databasepisa2006.htm
Padilla, J. L., & Benitez, I. (2014). Validity evidence based on response processes. Psicothema, 26(1), 136–144.
Padilla, J. L., Benitez, I., & Castillo, M. (2013). Obtaining validity evidence by cognitive interviewing to interpret psychometric results. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 9(3), 113–122.
Penfield, R. D. (2010). Distinguishing between net and global DIF in polytomous items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 47(2), 129–149.
Penfield, R. D., Alvarez, K., & Lee, O. (2009). Using a taxonomy of differential step functioning to improve the interpretation of DIF in polytomous items: An illustration. Applied Measurement in Education, 22(1), 61–78.
Sireci, S. G. (2012, April). “De-constructing” test validation. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Vancouver, BC.
Sireci, S. G., & Rios, J. A. (2013). Decisions that make a difference in detecting differential item functioning. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19(2–3), 170–187.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). The past and future of mixed methods research: From data triangulation to mixed model designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 671–701). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (2011). Equivalence and bias: A review of concepts, models, and data analytic procedures. In D. R. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Three generations of DIF analyses: Considering where it has been, where it is now, and where it is going. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(2), 223–233.
Zumbo, B. D. (2009). Validity as contextualized and pragmatic explanation, and its implications for validation practice. In R. W. Lissitz (Ed.), The concept of validity: Revisions, new directions and applications (pp. 65–82). Charlotte, NC: IAP-Information Age Publishing, Inc..
Zumbo, B. D. (2015, November). Consequences, side effects and the ecology of testing: keys to considering assessment ‘In Vivo’. Keynote address, the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Assessment – Europe (AEA-Europe), Glasgow, Scotland. [https://youtu.be/0L6Lr2BzuSQ]
Zumbo, B. D., & Gelin, M. N. (2005). A matter of test bias in educational policy research: Bringing the context into picture by investigating sociological/community moderated (or mediated) test and item bias. Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies, 5(1), 1–23.
Zumbo, B. D., Liu, Y., Wu, A. D., Shear, B. R., Olvera, O. L., & Tanvinder, K. A. (2015). A methodology for Zumbo’s third generation DIF analysis and the ecology of item responding. Language Assessment Quarterly, 12(1), 136–151.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Padilla, JL., Benítez, I. (2017). A Rationale for and Demonstration of the Use of DIF and Mixed Methods. In: Zumbo, B., Hubley, A. (eds) Understanding and Investigating Response Processes in Validation Research. Social Indicators Research Series, vol 69. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56129-5_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56129-5_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-56128-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-56129-5
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)