DIF DETECTION AND DESCRIPTION: MANTEL‐HAENSZEL AND STANDARDIZATION1,2

By N. Dorans, Paul Holland. 1992

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Real and Artificial Differential Item Functioning (2012, background): “We conclude by suggesting that the above understanding of the nature of artificial DIF is a prerequisite for properly responding to the remarks made by Dorans and Holland (1993) that ‘‘Future research should focus on trying to uncover testable, verifiable, robust explanations for why DIF occurs when”
Efficiency of the Mantel, Generalized Mantel–Haenszel, and Logistic Discriminant Function Analysis Methods in Detecting Differential Item Functioning for Polytomous Items (2005, methodology): “H method (Dorans & Holland, 1993) and the difference in R2 between two nested models for the logistic regression methods (Jodoin & Gierl, 2001; Zumbo, 1999).”
Formulating the Rasch Differential Item Functioning Model Under the Marginal Maximum Likelihood Estimation Context and Its Comparison With Mantel–Haenszel Procedure in Short Test and Small Sample Conditions (2011, background): “The common odds ratio aMH is sometimes transformed by 2:35 ln(aMH ) to put it into ETS difficulty scale called the ‘‘delta scale’’ for practitioners who use the ETS DIF classification rules (Dorans & Holland, 1993, p. 41).”
Odds Ratio, Delta, ETS Classification, and Standardization Measures of DIF Magnitude for Binary Logistic Regression (2007, methodology): “3 Monahan, McHorney, Stump, and Perkins In addition, one can calculate the ETS classification system (Dorans & Holland, 1993): Category A. Items with negligible or nonsignificant DIF.”
Using Bilingual Respondents to Evaluate Translated-Adapted Items (2000, methodology): “As Dorans and Holland (1993) pointed out in the following: In contrast to impact, which often can be explained by stable consistent differences in examinee ability distributions across groups, DIF refers to differences in item functioningaftergroups have been matched with respect to the ability or…”
Evaluating Guidelines For Test Adaptations (2006, background): “As Dorans and Holland (1993) described, “DIF refers to differences in item functioning after groups have been matched with respect to the ability or attribute that the item purportedly measures” (p.”
ETS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ITEM, TEST, AND SCORE FAIRNESS (2013, methodology): “The chapter by Dorans and Holland (1993) is the source of much of the material in the next two sections, which describe the MH and STAND procedures in some detail because they have been used operationally at ETS since that time.”