An Investigation of Item Bias

By A. Cleary, L. Segal, J. Stanley. 1968

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

50 Years of Test (Un)fairness: Lessons for Machine Learning (2018, methodology): “In earlier work on test fairness, there was a focus on defining measurements in terms of unfair discrimination and unfair bias, which brought with it the problem of uncovering sources of bias [12].”
A Psychometric Analysis of the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey in the South African Police Service (2003, methodology): “An extension of Cleary and Hilton’s (1968) use of analysis of variance was applied to identify item bias (Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997).”
ETS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ITEM, TEST, AND SCORE FAIRNESS (2013, background): “Cardall and Coffman (1964) and Cleary and Hilton (1966, 1968) defined item bias, the phrase that was commonly used before DIF was introduced, as an item-by-subgroup interaction.”
Differential Validity, Differential Prediction,and College Admission Testing: A Comprehensive Review and Analysis (2001, background): “Linn (1973) In his 1973 " Review of Educational Research " article, Linn summarized the results from four studies of differential prediction (Cleary, 1968; Davis and Kerner-Hoeg, 1971; Temp, 1971; Thomas, 1972) which included data from a total of 32 institutions.”
Assessing Differential Item Functioning Among Multiple Groups: A Comparison of Three Mantel-Haenszel Procedures (2001, unknown): “Incipient statistical investigations into item bias were predicated on the identification of items that displayed unusually large differences in the mean performance between demographic groups relative to that observed for the other items on the test (Angoff, 1972; Cleary & Hilton, 1968).”