臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究主要是從測量恆等性的觀點，檢驗DIF偵測對於測驗效度的效益，以及使用不同DIF淨化程序(一步驟、兩步驟、迭代)的成效，因此以模擬研究使用Mentel-Haenszel（MH）法進行DIF分析，在不同測驗長度、DIF量以及DIF試題比例下，分別利用NFI等指標差異及卡方差異檢定進行測量恆等性的檢驗，藉以了解DIF偵測對於測量恆等性的效益，並探討使用DIF淨化程序的必要性。
研究結果顯示，NFI等指標差異較卡方差異檢定寬鬆；DIF偵測能提高測量恆等性，而不同DIF淨化程序之間則無太大差異；測驗長度增加則會使測量恆等性降低，DIF量與DIF試題比例則無明顯影響組型。

The main purpose of this study was to investigate the benefit of DIF detection on test validity in terms of measurement invariance, and the effect of using different DIF purifying procedures (one-step, two-step, iteration). Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method was used in a simulation study with different test length, DIF magnitude and DIF item proportion. Except for chi-square difference test, several indices like NFI, IFI, RFI, TLI, CFI, Gamma hat and NCI were employed as the criteria to examine measurement invariance.
The results show that NFI and other indices are less restricted than chi-square difference test. DIF detection can improve measurement invariance but there is no apparent difference among different DIF purifying procedures. Meanwhile, measurement invariance is reduced with the increasing of test length. DIF magnitude and DIF item proportion have no significant varying pattern on invariance.

摘要 i
Abstract ii
目錄 iii
表目錄 v
圖目錄 vi
第壹章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 2
第二節 研究目的與問題 5
第三節 名詞釋義 6
第貳章 文獻探討 7
第一節 DIF檢測方法 7
第二節 測量恆等性的檢驗 13
第三節 DIF與測量恆等性之關係 17
第參章 研究設計與方法 20
第一節 研究架構與流程 20
第二節 資料矩陣 23
第三節 資料分析 25
第肆章 結果與討論 26
第一節 DIF淨化程序 26
第二節 測驗長度 37
第三節 DIF量 40
第四節 DIF試題比例 42
第伍章 結論與建議 45
第一節 研究結論 45
第二節 研究限制 46
第三節 研究建議 47
參考文獻 48
附錄 55

邱皓政（2003）。結構方程模式：LISEREL的理論技術與應用，雙葉書廊。
施俊名、吳裕益（2008）。大學生身心健康量表構念效度驗證之研究，教育研究與發展，4(4)，201-230。
盧雪梅（民95年9月）。測驗公平性，國中基本學力測驗專刊—飛揚，47，取自http://www.bctest.ntnu.edu.tw/。
邱皓政（2003）。結構方程模式：LISEREL的理論技術與應用，雙葉書廊。
施俊名、吳裕益（2008）。大學生身心健康量表構念效度驗證之研究，教育研究與發展，4(4)，201-230。
盧雪梅（民95年9月）。測驗公平性，國中基本學力測驗專刊—飛揚，47，取自http://www.bctest.ntnu.edu.tw/。
Ackerman, T. A., & Evans, J. A. (1994). The influence of conditioning scores in performing DIF analyses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18(4), 329-342.
Ahmavaara, Y. (1954). The mathematical theory of factorial invariance under selection. Psychometrika, 19, 27-38.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, &National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Angoff, W. H. (1993). Perspectives on differential item functioning methodology. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 3-23). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bontempo, D. E., & Mackinnon, A. (2006). Measurement equivalence/invariance of the Developmental Behavior Checklist: Factorial invariance of categorical factor models. Presentation at the 19th biannual meeting of the International Society for the Study for Behavioral Development. Melbourne, Australia.
Borsboom, D. (2003). Measurement invariance and construct validity. Paper presented in IMPS 2003 International Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Cagliari, Italy.
Byrne, B. M. (2004). Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: A road less traveled. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(2), 272–300.
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthen, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: the issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105(4), 456-466.
Candell, G. L., & Drasgow, F. (1988). An iterative procedure for linking metrics and assessing item bias in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12(3), 253-260.
Cattell, R. B., & Baggaley, A. R. (1960). The salient variable index for factor matching. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 13(1), 33-46.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255.
Clauser, B., Mazor, K., & Hambleton, R.K. (1993). The effects of purification of the matching criterion on the identification of DIF using the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Applied Measurement in Education, 6(4), 269-279.
Cliff, N. (1966). Orthogoanl rotation to congruence. Psychometrika, 31(1), 33-42.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
Dimitrov. D. M. (2010). Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43(2), 121-149.
Downing, S. M. (2003). Validity: on the meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Medical Education, 37(9), 830-837.
Drasgow, F. (1984). Scrutinizing psychological tests: Measurement equivalence and equivalent relations with external variables are the central issues. Psychological Bulletin, 95(1), 134-135.
Drasgow, F. (1987). Study of the measurement bias of two standardized psychological tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(1), 19-29.
Drasgow, F., & Kanfer, R. (1985). Equivalence of psychological measurement in heterogeneous populations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(4), 662-680.
Fidalgo, A. M., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Munniz, J. (1998). Comparison of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure versus the loglinear models for detecting differential item functioning. Psicothema, 10(1), 219-228.
Fidalgo, A. M., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Munniz, J. (2000). Effects of amount of DIF, test length, and purification type on robustness and power of Mantel-Haenszel procedures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 5(3), 43-53.
French, A. W., & Miller, T. R. (1996). Logistic regression and its use in detecting differential item functioning in polytomous items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33 (3), 315-332.
French, B. F. & Maller, S. J. (2007). Iterative purification and effect size use with logistic regression for differential item functioning detection. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(3), 373-393.
Hidalgo, M. D., & L?pez-Piza, J. A. (2004). Differential item functioning detection and effect size: A comparison between logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(6), 903-915.
Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun(Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129-145). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jodoin, M. G., & Gierl, M. J. (2001). Evaluating type I error and power rates using an effect size measure with logistic regression procedure for DIF detection. Applied Measurement in Educational, 14(4), 329-349.
Joreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36(4), 409–426.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1979). Advances in factor analysis and structural equation models. Cambridge, MA: ABT Books.
Joreskog, K. G., and Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
Kaiser, H. F., Hunka, S., & Bianchini, J. (1971). Relating factors between studies based on different individuals. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 6(4), 409-422.
Lautenschlager, G. J., Flaherty, V. L., & Park, D. G. (1994). IRT differential item functioning: An examination of ability scale purifications. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(1), 21-31.
Li, H. –H., & Stout, W. (1996). A new procedure for detection of crossing DIF. Psychometrika, 61(4), 647-677.
Little, T. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analysis of cross-cultural data: Practice and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32(1), 53-76.
Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
MacLean, H., Mckenzie, K., Kidd, G., Murray, A. L. & Schwannauer, M. (2011). Measurement invariance in the assessment of people with an intellectual disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(2), 1081-1085.
Mantel, N., & Haenszel, W. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22(4), 719-748.
Mellenbergh, G. J. (1982). Contingency table models for assessing item bias. Journal of Educational statistics, 7(2), 105-118.
Meredith, W. (1964). Notes on factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 29(2), 177-185.
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58(4), 525–543.
Meredith, W., & Teresi, J. (2006). An essay on measurement and factorial invariance. Medical Care, 44 (11), S69-S77.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-104). New York: Macmillan
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741-749.
Miller, M. D. , & Oshima, T. C. (1992). Effect of sample size, number of biased items, and magnitude of bias on a two-stage item bias estimation method. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16(4), 381-388.
Mulaik, S. A. (1972). The foundations of factor analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Narayanan, P., & Swaminathan, H. (1994). Performance of the Mantel-Haenszel and simultaneous item bias procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18(4), 315-328.
Narayanan, P., & Swaminathan, H. (1996). Identification of items that show nonuniform DIF. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20(3), 257-274.
Navas-Ara, M. J., & Gomez-Benito, J. (2002). Effects of ability scale puri?cation on the identi?cation of DIF. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18(1), 9-15.
Pei, L. K., & Li, J. (2010).Effects of unequal ability variances on the performance of Logistic regression, Mantel-Haenszel, SIBTEST IRT, and IRT likelihood ratio for DIF detection. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34(6), 453-456.
Please, N. W. (1973). Comparison of factor loadings in different populations. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 26(1), 67-89.
Raju, N. S., Laffitte, L. J., & Byrne, B. M. (2002). Measurement equivalence: a comparison of methods based on con?rmatory factor analysis and item response theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 517–529.
Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 552–566.
Reynold, C. R., & Harding, R. E. (1983). Outcome in two large sample studies of factorial similarity under six methods of comparison. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43(3), 723-728.
Rogers, H. J. & Swaminathan, H. (1993). A comparison of logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17(2), 105-116.
Roussos, L. A., & Stout, W. (1996). A multidimensionality-based DIF analysis paradigm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20(4), 355-371.
Shealy, R., & Stout, W. (1993). A model-based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from group ability differences and detects that bias/DTF as well as item bias/DIF. Psychometrika, 58(2). 159-194.
Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78-90.
Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(4), 361-370.
Taylor, P. A. (1967). The use of factor models in curriculum evaluation: A mathematical model relating two factor structures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 27(2), 305-321.
Uttaro, T. & Millsap, R. E. (1994). Factors influencing the Mantel-Haenszel procedure in the detection of differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18(1), 15-25.
van der Flier, H., Mellenbergh, G. J., Ader, H. J., & Wijn, M. (1984). An iterative item bias detection method. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21(2), 131-145.
van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(4), 486–492.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–69.
Walker, C. M. (2011). What’s the DIF? Why differential item functioning analyses are an important part of instrument development and validation. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 364-376.
Wang, W. C., & Su, Y. H. (2004). Effect of average signed area between two item characteristic curves and test purification procedures on the DIF detection via the Mantel-Haenszel method. Applied Measurement in Education, 17(2), 113-144.
Zieky, M. (2006). Fairness review in assessment. In S. M. Dowing & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 359-376). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
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. Ottawa, Canada: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation.