Search

Score equity assessment (SEA) refers to an examination of population invariance of equating across two or more subpopulations of test examinees. Previous SEA studies have shown that score equity may be present for examinees scoring at particular test score ranges but absent for examinees scoring at other score ranges. No studies to date have performed research for the purpose of understanding why score equity can be inconsistent across the score range of some tests. The purpose of this study is to explore a source of uneven subpopulation score equity across the score range of a test. It is hypothesized that the difficulty of anchor items displaying differential item functioning (DIF) is directly related to the score location at which issues of score inequity are observed. The simulation study supports the hypothesis that the difficulty of DIF items has a systematic impact on the uneven nature of conditional score equity.

Cognitive diagnosis models (CDMs) estimate student ability profiles using latent attributes. Model fit to the data needs to be ascertained in order to determine whether inferences from CDMs are valid. This study investigated the usefulness of some popular model fit statistics to detect CDM fit including relative fit indices (AIC, BIC, and CAIC), and absolute fit indices (RMSEA2, "ABS"("fcor") and "MAX"("?[superscript 2][subscript jj']")). These fit indices were assessed under different CDM settings with respect to Q-matrix misspecification and CDM misspecification. Results showed that relative fit indices selected the correct DINA model most of the times and selected the correct G-DINA model well across most conditions. Absolute fit indices rejected the true DINA model if the Q-matrix was misspecified in any way. Absolute fit indices rejected the true G-DINA model whenever the Q-matrix was under-specified. RMSEA2 could be artificially low when the Q-matrix was over-specified.