Search

In this study a standardized effect size was created for use with the SIBTEST procedure. Using this standardized effect size, a single set of heuristics was developed that are appropriate for data fitting different item response models (e.g., 2-parameter logistic, 3-parameter logistic). The standardized effect size rescales the raw beta-uni value using a pooled variation that incorporates the beta-uni inclusion factor. Although the heuristics for the standardized and unstandardized effect sizes provide similar true-positive and false-positive rates in most conditions, the standardized effect size provides higher true-positive rates for conditions where item response variability is smaller in proportion to raw score differences. Inflated false-positive rates were solely impacted by smaller sample sizes, whereas larger sample sizes improved true-positive rates. An empirical application is provided to demonstrate how the standardized effect size provides for a more consistent comparison across items with varying response distributions. This study lays the foundation for the utilization of a standardized effect size for both dichotomous and polytomous item response models using the suite of SIBTEST procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A study was conducted to implement the use of a standardized effect size and corresponding classification guidelines for polytomous data with the POLYSIBTEST procedure and compare those guidelines with prior recommendations. Two simulation studies were included. The first identifies new unstandardized test heuristics for classifying moderate and large differential item functioning (DIF) for polytomous response data with three to seven response options. These are provided for researchers studying polytomous data using POLYSIBTEST software that has been published previously. The second simulation study provides one pair of standardized effect size heuristics that can be employed with items having any number of response options and compares true-positive and false-positive rates for the standardized effect size proposed by Weese with one proposed by Zwick et al. and two unstandardized classification procedures (Gierl; Golia). All four procedures retained false-positive rates generally below the level of significance at both moderate and large DIF levels. However, Weese's standardized effect size was not affected by sample size and provided slightly higher true-positive rates than the Zwick et al. and Golia's recommendations, while flagging substantially fewer items that might be characterized as having negligible DIF when compared with Gierl's suggested criterion. The proposed effect size allows for easier use and interpretation by practitioners as it can be applied to items with any number of response options and is interpreted as a difference in standard deviation units. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A simulation study was conducted to investigate the heuristics of the SIBTEST procedure and how it compares with ETS classification guidelines used with the Mantel–Haenszel procedure. Prior heuristics have been used for nearly 25 years, but they are based on a simulation study that was restricted due to computer limitations and that modeled item parameters from estimates of ACT and ASVAB tests from 1987 and 1984, respectively. Further, suggested heuristics for data fitting a two-parameter logistic model (2PL) have essentially went unused since their original presentation. This simulation study incorporates a wide range of data conditions to recommend heuristics for both 2PL and three-parameter logistic (3PL) data that correspond with ETS's Mantel–Haenszel heuristics. Levels of agreement between the new SIBTEST heuristics and Mantel–Haenszel heuristics were similar for 2PL data and higher than prior SIBTEST heuristics for 3PL data. The new recommendations provide higher true-positive rates for 2PL data. Conversely, they displayed decreased true-positive rates for 3PL data. False-positive rates, overall, remained below the level of significance for the new heuristics. Unequal group sizes resulted in slightly larger false-positive rates than balanced designs for both prior and new SIBTEST heuristics, with rates less than alpha levels for equal ability distributions and unbalanced designs versus false-positive rates slightly higher than alpha with unequal ability distributions and unbalanced designs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]