Ackerman, T. A. (1992). A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact, & item validity from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 67–91.Google Scholar

Agresti, A. (2013). Categorical data analysis (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar

Allison, P. D. (2002). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allison, P. D. (2003). Missing data techniques for structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 545–557.Google Scholar

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (2014). The standards for educational and psychological testing (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar

Andrich, D. (1982). An extension of the Rasch model for ratings providing both location and dispersion parameters. Psychometrika, 47, 105–113.Google Scholar

Angoff, W. H. (1972, September). A technique for the investigation of cultural differences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu.Google Scholar

Angoff, W. H. (1993). Perspective on differential item functioning methodology. In Holland, P. W. & Wainer, H. (eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 3–24). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Baker, F. B. (1992). Item response theory: Parameter estimation techniques. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar

Baker, F. B., & Kim, S.-H. (2004). Item response theory: Parameter estimation techniques (2nd ed.). New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar

Bandalos, D. L. (2018). Measurement theory and applications for the social sciences. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Bandalos, D. L. (2014). Relative performance of categorical diagonally weighted least squares and robust maximum likelihood estimation. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21, 102–116.Google Scholar

Bejar, I. I. (1983). Introduction to item response models and their assumptions. In Hambleton, R. K. (ed.), Applications of item response theory (pp. 1–23). Vancouver, BC: Educational Research Institute of British Columbia.Google Scholar

Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 57, 289–300.Google Scholar

Bentler, P. M. (2004). EQS 6 structural equation modeling manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.Google Scholar

Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee’s ability. In Lord, F. M. & Novick, M. R. (eds.), Statistical theories of mental test scores (pp. 397–479). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Bock, R. D. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika, 37, 29–31.Google Scholar

Bock, R. D., & Aitkin, M. (1981). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: An application of the EM algorithm. Psychometrika, 46, 443–449.Google Scholar

Bock, R. D., & Lieberman, M. (1970). Fitting a response model for dichotomously scored items. Psychometrika, 35, 179–198.Google Scholar

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Bolt, D. M. (2002). A Monte Carlo comparison of parametric and nonparametric polytomous DIF detection methods. Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 113–141.Google Scholar

Box, G. E. P., & Draper, N. R. (1987). Empirical model building and response surfaces. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Bradlow, E. T., Wainer, H., & Wang, X. (1999). A Bayesian random effects model for testlets. Psychometrika, 64, 153–168.Google Scholar

Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Browne, M. W. (1984). Asymptotically distribution free methods in the analysis of covariance structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 63–83.Google Scholar

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen, K. A. & Long, J. S. (eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with Lisrel, Prelis, and Simplis: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Cai, L. (2017). flexMIRT 3.5: Flexible multilevel multidimensional item analysis and test scoring [computer software]. Chapel Hill, NC: Vector Psychometric Group.Google Scholar

Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Candell, G. L., & Drasgow, F. (1988). An iterative procedure for linking metrics and assessing item bias in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cervantes, V. H. (2017). DFIT: An R package for Raju’s differential functioning of items and tests framework. Journal of Statistical Software, 76, 1–24.Google Scholar

Chalmers, R. P. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1–29.Google Scholar

Chalmers, R. P. (2018). Improving the crossing-SIBTEST statistic for detecting non-uniform DIF. Psychometrika, 83, 376–386.Google Scholar

Chen, F. F., Hayes, A., Carver, C. S., Laurenceau, J. P., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Modeling general and specific variance in multifaceted constructs: A comparison of the bifactor model to other approaches. Journal of Personality, 80(1), 219–251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Chen, F. F., West, S. G., & Sousa, K. H. (2006). A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, 189–225.Google Scholar

Chen, W.-H., & Thissen, D. (1997). Local dependence indexes for item pairs using item response theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22(3), 265–289.Google Scholar

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.Google Scholar

Chou, C. P., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling. In Hoyle, R. H. (ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 37–55). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Chou, C. P., Bentler, P. M., & Satorra, A. (1991). Scaled test statistics and robust standard errors for non-normal data in covariance structure analysis: A Monte Carlo study. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 44, 347–357.Google Scholar

Clauser, B. E., 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, 269–279.Google Scholar

Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003.Google Scholar

Cole, N. S. (1978). Approaches to examining bias in achievement test items. Paper presented at the national meeting of the American Personnel and Guidance Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Cook, L. L., & Eignor, D. R. (1991). An NCME instructional module on IRT equating methods. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10, 37–45.Google Scholar

Cotton, R. (2013). Learning R. Sebastopol: O’Reilly.Google Scholar

Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16–29.Google Scholar

de Ayala, R. J. (2009). Theory and practice of item response theory. New York: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar

DeMars, C. (2010). Item response theory. New York: Oxford Press.Google Scholar

Dolan, C. V. (1994). Factor analysis of variables with 2, 3, 5, and 7 response categories: A comparison of categorical variable estimators using simulated data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 47, 309–326.Google Scholar

Donoghue, J. R., & Allen, N. L. (1993). Thin versus thick matching in the Mantel-Haenszel procedure for detecting DIF. Journal of Educational Statistics, 18, 131–154.Google Scholar

Donoghue, J. R., Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1993). A Monte Carlo study of factors that affect the Mantel-Haenszel and standardization measures of differential item functioning. In Holland, P. & Wainer, H. (eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 137–166). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Dorans, N. J., & Holland, P. W. (1993). DIF detection and description: Mantel-Haenszel and standardization. In Holland, P. W. & Wainer, H. (eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 35–66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Dorans, N. J., & Kulick, E. (1986). Demonstrating the utility of the standardization approach to assessing unexpected differential item performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23, 355–368.Google Scholar

Dorans, N. J., & Schmitt, A. P. (1993). Constructed response and differential item functioning: A pragmatic approach. In Bennett, R. E. & Ward, W. C. (eds.), Construction versus choice in cognitive measurement: Issues in constructed response, performance testing, and portfolio assessment (pp. 135–165). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Dorans, N. J., Schmitt, A. P., & Bleistein, C. A. (1988). The standardization approach to assessing differential speededness (Research Report No. 88-31). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services.Google Scholar

Douglas, J., & Cohen, A. S. (2001). Nonparametric item response function estimation for assessing parametric model fit. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 234–243.Google Scholar

Edgington, E. S. (1987). Randomization tests. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar

Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar

Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar

Engelhard, G. (2012). Invariant measurement: Using Rasch models in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar

Finch, H. (2005). The MIMIC model as a method for detecting DIF: Comparison with Mantel-Haenszel, SIBTEST, and the IRT likelihood-ratio. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 278–295.Google Scholar

Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2013). Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In Hancock, G. R. & Mueller, R. O. (eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course, (pp. 439–492). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9, 466–491.Google Scholar

Foss, T., Joreskog, K. G., & Olsson, U. H. (2011). Testing structural equation models: The effect of kurtosis. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 55, 2263–2275.Google Scholar

French, B. F., & Maller, S. J. (2007). Iterative purification and effect size use with logistic regression for differential item functioning detection. Education Psychological Measurement, 67, 373–393Google Scholar

Gierl, M. J., Gotzmann, A., & Boughton, K. A. (2004). Performance of SIBTEST when the percentage of DIF items is large. Applied Measurement in Education, 17, 241–264.Google Scholar

Goldstein, H. (1983). Measuring changes in educational attainment over time: Problems and possibilities. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 369–377.Google Scholar

Gomez-Benito, J., Hidalgo, M. D., & Zumbo, B. D. (2013). Effectiveness of combining statistical tests and effect sizes when using logistic discriminant function regression to detect differential item functioning for polytomous items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73, 875–897.Google Scholar

Gotzmann, A. J. (2001). The effect of large ability differences on Type I error and power rates using SIBTEST and TESTGRAF DIF detection procedures. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar

Gotzmann, A. J., & Boughton, K. A. (2004, April). A comparison of Type I error and power rates for the Mantel-Haenszel and SIBTEST procedures when group differences are large and unbalanced. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) in San Diego, California.Google Scholar

Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar

Harrell, F. E. (2020). rms: Regression modeling strategies. R package version 6.0–1.Google Scholar

Harrison, D. (1986). Robustness of IRT parameter estimation to violations of the unidimensionality assumption. Journal of Educational Statistics, 11, 91–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holland, P. W. (1985). On the study of differential item performance without IRT. Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the Military Testing Association (Vol. 1, pp. 282–287), San Diego, California.Google Scholar

Holland, P. W. (1989). A note on the covariance of the Mantel-Haenszel log-odds estimator and the sample marginal rates. Biometrics, 45, 1009–1015.Google Scholar

Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In Wainer, H. & Braun, H. (eds.), Test validity (pp. 129–145). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.Google Scholar

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.Google Scholar

Hu, L., Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1992). Can test statistics in covariance structure analysis be trusted? Psychological Bulletin, 112, 351–362.Google Scholar

Hunter, J. E. (1975). A critical analysis of the use of item means and item-test correlations to determine the pressure or absence of content bias in achievement test items. Paper presented at the National Institute of Education conference on test bias, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar

Jodoin, M. G., & Gierl, M. J. (2001). Evaluating type I error and power rates using an effect size measure with the Logistic Regression procedure for DIF detection. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 329–349.Google Scholar

Kabacoff, R. I. (2011). R in action. Shelter Island: Manning.Google Scholar

Kim, S-H., & Cohen, A. S. (1993). A comparison of Lord’s χ² and Raju’s area measures in detection of DIF. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 39–52.Google Scholar

Kim, S-H., & Cohen, A. S. (1995). A comparison of Lord’s chi-square, Raju’s area measures, and the likelihood-ratio test on detection of differential item functioning. Applied Measurement in Education, 8, 291–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kirk, R. E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar

Kirk, R. E. (2012). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar

Klein, A., & Moosbrugger, H. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method, Psychometrika, 65, 457–474.Google Scholar

Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Li, Y. H., & Lissitz, R. W. (2004). Applications of the analytically derived asymptotic standard errors of item response theory item parameter estimates. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41, 85–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Li, H., & Stout, W. (1996). A new procedure for detection of crossing DIF. Psychometrika, 61, 647–677.Google Scholar

Linn, R. L., Levine, M. V., Hastings, C. N., & Wardrop, J. L. (1981). An investigation of item bias in a test of reading comprehension. Applied Psychological Measurement, 5, 159–173.Google Scholar

Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar

Lord, F. M. (1977). A study of item bias using item characteristic curve theory. In Poortinga, Y. H. (ed.), Basic problems in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 19–29). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar

Lord, F. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Lord, F. (1983). Small N justifies the Rasch model. In Weiss, D. J. (ed.) New horizons in testing: Latent trait test theory and computerized adaptive testing (pp. 51–61). New York: Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar

MacCallum, , R. C, Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.Google Scholar

Magis, D., & Facon, B. (2012). Angoff’s delta method revisited: Improving DIF detection under small samples. The British Psychological Society, 65, 302–321.Google Scholar

Magis, D., & Facon, B. (2013). Item purification does not always improve DIF detection: A counter-example with Angoff’s Delta plot. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73, 293–311.Google Scholar

Magis, D., & Facon, B. (2014). deltaPlotR: An R package for differential item functioning analysis with Angoff’s delta plot. Journal of Statistical Software, 59, 1–19.Google Scholar

Magis, D., Beland, S., Tuerlinckx, F., & De Boeck, P. (2010). A general framework and an R package for the detection of dichotomous differential item functioning. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 847–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mantel, N. (1963). Chi-square tests with one degree of freedom: Extensions of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 690–700.Google Scholar

Mantel, N., & Haenszel, W. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 719–748.Google Scholar

Marco, G. L. (1977). Item characteristic curve solutions to three intractable testing problems. Journal of Educational Measurement, 14, 139–160.Google Scholar

Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149–174.Google Scholar

McKinley, R. L. (1983, April). A multidimensional extension of the two-parameter logistic latent trait model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar

McKinley, R. L., & Reckase, M. D. (1983, August). An extension of the two-parameter logistic model to the multidimensional latent space (Research Report No. ONR83-2). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program.Google Scholar

Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 568–592.Google Scholar

Mellenbergh, G. J. (1982). Contingency table methods for assessing item bias. Journal of Educational Statistics, 7, 105–118.Google Scholar

Micceri, T. (1989). The unicorn, the normal curve, and other improbable creatures. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 156–166.Google Scholar

Miller, T., Spray, J., & Wilson, A. (1992). A comparison of three methods for identifying nonuniform DIF in polytomously scored test items. Paper presented at the Psychometric Society meeting, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar

Millsap, R. E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Millsap, R. E., & Cham, H. (2012). Investigating factorial invariance in longitudinal data. In Laursen, B., Little, T. D., & Card, N. A. (Eds.), Handbook of developmental research methods (pp. 109–126). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Millsap, R. E., & Olivera-Aguilar, M. (2012). Investigating measurement invariance using confirmatory factor analysis. In Hoyle, R. H., Handbook of structural equation modeling, (pp. 380–392). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Muniz, J., Hambleton, R. K., & Xing, D. (2001). Small sample studies to detect flaws in item translations. International Journal of Testing, 1, 115–135.Google Scholar

Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 159–176.Google Scholar

Muraki, E., & Bock, R. D. (2003). PARSCALE 4.1: IRT item analysis and test scoring for rating-scale data. Chicago: Science Software International.Google Scholar

Muthen, B. O., & Kaplan, D. (1985). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of nonnormal Likert variables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 171–189.Google Scholar

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B.O. (2008–2017). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar

Nagelkerke, N. J. D. (1991). A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika, 78, 691–692.Google Scholar

Nandakumar, R., & Roussos, L. (2001). CATSIB: A modified SIBTEST procedure to detect differential item functioning in computerized adaptive tests (Research Report). Newtown, PA: Law School Admission Council.Google Scholar

Narayanan, P., & Swaminathan, H. (1994). Performance of the Mantel-Haenszel and simultaneous item bias procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 315–338.Google Scholar

Narayanan, P., & Swaminathan, H. (1996). Identification of items that show nonuniform DIF. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 257–274.Google Scholar

Nering, M. L., & Ostini, R. (2010). Handbook of polytomous item response theory models. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Nicewander, W. A. (2018). Conditional reliability coefficients for test scores. Psychological Methods, 23, 351–362.Google Scholar

Olsson, U. H., Foss, T., & Troye, S. V. (2003). Does the ADF fit function decrease when kurtosis increases? British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 56, 289–303.Google Scholar

Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2000). Likelihood-based item-fit indices for dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 50–64.Google Scholar

Oshima, T. C., Raju, N. S., & Nanda, A. O. (2006). A new method for assessing the statistical significance in the differential functioning of items and tests (DFIT) framework. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43(1), 1–17.Google Scholar

Osterlind, S. J., & Everson, H. T. (2009). Differential item functioning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Patz, R., & Junker, B. (1999). A straightforward approach to Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for item response models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 146–178.Google Scholar

Phillips, A., & Holland, P. W. (1987). Estimation of the variance of the Mantel-Haenszel log-odds-ratio estimate. Biometrics, 43, 425–431.Google Scholar

R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar

Raju, N. S. (1988). The area between two item characteristic curves. Psychometrika, 53, 495–502.Google Scholar

Raju, N. S. (1990). Determining the significance of estimated signed and unsigned areas between two item response functions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 197–207.Google Scholar

Raju, N. S., van der Linden, W. J., & Fleer, P. F. (1995). IRT-based internal measures of differential functioning of items and tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 353–368.Google Scholar

Ramsay, J. O. (1991). Kernel smoothing approaches to nonparametric item characteristic curve estimation. Psychometrika, 56, 611–630.Google Scholar

Ramsay, J. O., & Silverman, B. W. (2005). Functional data analysis. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Institute for Educational Research.Google Scholar

Reckase, M. D. (2009). Multidimensional item response theory. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(5), 667–696.Google Scholar

Reise, S. P., Moore, T. M., & Haviland, M. G. (2010). Bifactor models and rotations: Exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(6), 544–559.Google Scholar

Reise, S. P., Scheines, R., Widaman, K. F., & Haviland, M. G. (2013). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: A bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 5–26.Google Scholar

Rhemtulla, M., Brossequ-Liard, P., & Savalei, V. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17, 354–373.Google Scholar

Robin, F., Sireci, S. G., & Hambleton, R. K. (2003). Evaluating the equivalence of different language versions of a credentialing exam. International Journal of Testing, 3, 1–20.Google Scholar

Robins, J., Breslow, N., & Greenland, S. (1986). Estimators of the Mantel-Haenszel variance consistent in both sparse data and large-strata limiting models. Biometrics, 42, 311–323.Google Scholar

Rogers, H. J., & Swaminathan, H. (1993). A comparison of the logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 105–116.Google Scholar

Rudner, L. M. (1977, April). An approach to biased item identification using latent trait measurement theory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.Google Scholar

Rudner, L. M. (1978). Using standard tests with the hearing impaired: The problems of item bias. Volta Review, 80, 31–40.Google Scholar

Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent trait ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph, No. 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Samejima, F. (2010). The general graded response model. In Nering, M. L. & Ostini, R. (eds.), Handbook of polytomous item response theory models (pp. 77–107). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1988). Scaling corrections for chi-square statistics in covariance structure analysis. Proceedings of the Business and Economic Statistics Section of the American Statistical Association, 36, 308–313.Google Scholar

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors on covariance structure analysis. In von Eye, A. & Clogg, C. C. (eds.), Latent variables analysis (pp. 399–419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Satorra, A., and Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75, 243–248.Google Scholar

Serlin, R. C., & Lapsley, D. K. (1985). Rationality in psychological research: The good-enough principle. American Psychologist, 40, 73–83.Google Scholar

Serlin, R. C., & Lapsley, D. K. (1993). Rational appraisal of psychological research and the good-enough principle. In Keren, G. & Lewis, C. (eds.), A handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences (pp. 199–228). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Shealy, R., & Stout, W. (1993a). An item response theory model for test bias and differential item functioning. In Holland, P. & Wainer, H. (eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 197–240). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Shealy, R., & Stout, W. (1993b). A model-based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF. Psychometrika, 58, 159–194.Google Scholar

Shepard, L. A., Camilli, G., & Williams, D. M. (1984). Accounting for statistical artifacts in item bias research. Journal of Educational Statistics, 9, 93–128.Google Scholar

Shepard, L. A., Camilli, G., & Williams, D. M. (1985). Validity of approximation techniques for detecting item bias. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22, 77–106.Google Scholar

Sijtsma, K., & Molenaar, I. W. (2002). Introduction to nonparametric item response theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Sinharay, S., Johnson, M. S., & Stern, H. S. (2006). Posterior predictive assessment of item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30, 298–321.Google Scholar

Somes, G. W. (1986). The generalized Mantel-Haenszel statistic. American Statistician, 40, 106–108.Google Scholar

Spearman, C. (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 72–101.Google Scholar

Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Drasgow, F. (2006). Detecting differential item functioning with confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Toward a unified strategy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1291–1306.Google Scholar

Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180.Google Scholar

Steinberg, L., & Thissen, D. (2006). Using effect sizes for research reporting: Examples using item response theory to analyze differential item functioning. Psychological Methods, 11, 402–415.Google Scholar

Stocking, M. L., & Lord, F. M. (1983). Developing a common metric in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 201–210.Google Scholar

Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 361–370.Google Scholar

Thissen, D. (2001). IRTLRDIF v2.05: Software for the computation of the statistics involved in item response theory likelihood-ratio tests for differential item functioning.Google Scholar

Thissen, D., & Orlando, M. (2001). Item response theory for items scored in two categories. In Thissen, D. & Wainer, H. (eds.), Test scoring (pp. 73–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar

Thissen, D., & Steinberg, L. (1984). A response model for multiple choice items. Psychometrika, 49, 501–519.Google Scholar

Thissen, D., & Steinberg, L. (1986). Taxonomy of item response models. Psychometrika, 51, 567–578.Google Scholar

Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1988). Use of item response theory in the study of group differences in trace lines. In Wainer, W. & Braun, H. (eds.), Test validity (pp. 147–169). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1993). Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. In Holland, P. & Wainer, H. (eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 67–113). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Thomas, M. L. (2012). Rewards of bridging the divide between measurement and clinical theory: Demonstration of a bifactor model for the Brief Symptom Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 24(1), 101–113.Google Scholar

Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Ullman, J. (2006). Structural equation modeling: Reviewing the basics and moving forward. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 35–50.Google Scholar

Uttaro, T., & Millsap, R. E. (1994). Factors influencing the Mantel-Haenszel procedure in the detection of differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 15–25.Google Scholar

van der Linden, W. J. (2016). Handbook of item response theory, volume one: Models. Monterey, CA: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar

Wainer, H. (1993). Model-based standardized measurement of an item’s differential impact. In Holland, P. W. & Wainer, H. (eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 123–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Wainer, H., & Wang, X. (2001). Using a new statistical model for testlets to score TOEFL. ETS TOEFL Technical Report TR-16. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar

Wainer, H., Bradlow, E. T., & Wang, Z. (2007). Testlet response theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wald, A. (1943). Tests of statistical hypotheses concerning several parameters when the number of observations is large. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 54, 426–482.Google Scholar

Wang, W. C. (2004). Effects of anchor item methods on detection of differential item functioning within the family of Rasch models. Journal of Experimental Education, 72, 221–261.Google Scholar

Wang, W. C., & Yeh, Y. L. (2004). Effects of anchor item methods on differential item functioning detection with the likelihood-ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 479–498.Google Scholar

Wingersky, M. S., Barton, M. A., & Lord, F. M. (1982). LOGIST user’s guide. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar

Wollack, J. A. (1997). A nominal response model approach for detecting answer copying. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 307–320.Google Scholar

Woods, C. M. (2009). Empirical selection of anchors for tests of differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 42–57.Google Scholar

Yen, W. M. (1981). Using simulation results to choose a latent trait model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 5, 245–262.Google Scholar

Yen, W. M. (1984). Effects of local item dependence on the fit and equating performance of the three-parameter logistic model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 125–145.Google Scholar

Yen, W. M. (1993). Scaling performance assessments: Strategies for managing local item dependence. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 187–213.Google Scholar

Yu, C., & Muthen, B. (2002, April). Evaluation of model fit indices for latent variable models with categorical and continuous outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar

Zenisky, A. L., Hambleton, R. K., & Robin, F. (2003). Detection of differential item functioning in large-scale state assessments: A study evaluating a two-stage approach. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 51–64.Google Scholar

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, ON: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.Google Scholar

Zwick, R., & Thayer, D. T. (1996). Evaluating the magnitude of differential item functioning in polytomous items. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 21, 187–201.Google Scholar

Zwick, R., Donoghue, J. R., & Grima, A. (1993). Assessing differential item functioning in performance tasks. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 233–251.Google Scholar

Zwick, R., Thayer, D. T., & Wingersky, M. (1993). A simulation study of methods for assessing differential item functioning in computer-adaptive tests (Research Rep. No. 93-11). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar