後續研究建議

根據本研究不足之處，對於後續研究有以下的建議：

壹、探討迭代定題法的檢核效果

本研究旨在於探究結合先定錨後檢核策略之概似比檢定法在 DIF 檢核效果 與試題參數之間的關係，此策略在本研究中發現型一誤差受到 DIF 試題的難度 參數值的影響不大，但在檢核效果部分則發現會受到 DIF 試題的難度參數值的 影響，因研究中只使用標準概似比檢定法選題法及量尺淨化的概似比檢定法選

題法來進行選題，對於迭代定題法的概似比檢定法部分未進行探討，建議未來 研究可針對迭代定題法的概似比檢定法選題法進行研究，進一步探討結合先定 錨後檢核策略的概似比檢定法檢核效果是否會受到 DIF 試題參數的影響。

貳、對非二元計分類型的試題進行探究

在本研究中所使用的模擬資料僅針對 IRT 模式下的二元計分的試題做探討，

對於多元計分類型的試題如 GRM 模式下以及非 IRT 模式下的試題，在本研究的 實驗設計中並未做探討，因此實驗結果無法瞭解及推論 IRT 模式下的多元計分 類型的試題及非 IRT 模式下的試題，其 DIF 檢核效果是否會受 DIF 試題的難度 值不同影響，後續研究亦可朝此方向進行探討。

參、探討試題鑑別度及猜測度參數對檢核效果的影響

因研究時間的限制，研究設計當中並未探討 DIF 試題的鑑別度高低及猜測 度是否會對結合先定錨後檢核策略之概似比檢定法在 DIF 檢核效果造成影響，

後續研究可針對此部分做個探討。

參考文獻

余民寧 （2009）。試題反應理論(IRT)及其應用。台北市：心理出版社股份有 限公司。

孫國瑋 （2010）。先定錨後檢核策略運用在概似比檢定法之差異試題功能檢核 效果。國立臺中教育大學教育測驗統計研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺中市。

陳信豪 （2009）。DIF-Free-then-DIF 策略在 Logistic Regression 程序之差異試 題功能檢測效率。國立中正大學心理學研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義縣。

陳惠靖 （2011）。三種定錨題選題法於先定錨後檢核策略之效果比較－以概似 比檢定法檢核多分題差異試題功能為例。國立臺中教育大學教育測驗統計 研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺中市。

黃瓅瑩 （2008）。HGLM 分析之 DIF 比較與應用。國立臺南大學測驗統計研 究所碩士論文，未出版，臺南市。

楊雅惠、鄒慧英 （2010）。Mantel-Haenszel 偵測 DIF 試題表現與試題參數的關 係。施慶麟（主持人），第九屆海峽兩岸心理與教育測驗學術研討會，教 育研究院籌備處。

Ankenmann, S.-H., & Cohen, A. S. (1992). Effects of linking methods on detection of DIF. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 551-566.

Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee’s ability. In F. M. Lord & M. R. Novick（Eds.）, Statistical theories of mental test scores（pp.397-472）. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesely.

Clauser, B., 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.

Cohen, A. S., Kim, S. -H., & Wollack, J. A. (1996). An investigation of the likelihood ratio test for detection of differential item functioning . Applied Psychological

Measurement, 20（1）, 15-26.

Cole, N. S., & Zieky, M. J. (2001). The New Faces of Fairness. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 369-382.

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, 67, 373-393.

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

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.

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

Hanson, B. A., & Beguin, A. A. (2002). Obtaining a common scale for item response theory item parameters using separate versus concurrent estimation in the common-item equating design. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 3-24 Hidalgo, M. D., & Lopez-Piza, J. A. (2004).Differential item functioning detection and

effect size：A comparison between logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures. Educational of Psychological Measurement, 64, 903-915.

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

Holland, P. W., &Wainer, H. (1993). DIF detection and description ： Mantel-Haenszel and Standardization. In N. J. Dorans & P. W. Holland (Eds.),

Differential item functioning (pp. 35-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kim, S.-H., & Cohen, A. S. (1992). Effects of linking methods on detection of DIF.

Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 551-566.

Kim, S.-H., & Cohen, A. S. (1998). Detection of differential item functioning under the graded response model with the likelihood ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 345-355.

Lopez-Rivas. G. E., Stark, S., & Chernyshenko, O. S. (2009). The Effects of Referent Item Parameters on Differential Item Functioning Detection Using the Free Baseline Likelihood Ratio Test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 251-265

Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

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.

Mellenberg, G. J. (1982). Contingency table models for assessing item bias. Journal of Educational Statistics, 7, 105-108.

Monahan, P. O., & Ankenmann, R. D.（ 2005）Effect of unequal variances in proficiency distributions on type-I error of Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test for differential item functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement,42（2） ,101-131.

Narayanan, P. & Swaminath, H.（1994）Performance of the Mantel-Haenszel and simulataneous item bias procedures for detecting differential item functioning . Applied Psychological Measurement, 18（4）, 315-328

Measuring Unsigned Differential Test Functioning in Mixed Format Tests.

Journal of Educational Measurement, 43, 295-312.

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

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

Raju, N. S., van der Linden, W., & Fleer, P. (1995). IRT-Based Internal Measures of Differential Functioning of Items and Tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 353-368

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

Roussos, L. A. & Stout, W. F. (1996).Simulation studies of the effects of small sample size and studies item parameters on SIBTEST and Mantel-Haenszel Type I error perfermence. Journal of Educational Measurement,33, 215-230.

Santelices, M. V., & Wilson, M. (2011).On the Relationship Between Differential Item Functioning and Item Difficulty: An Issue of Methods? Item Response Theory Approach to Differential Item Functioning. Educational of Psychological Measurement,64, 1-32.

Scherbaum, C., & Goldstein, H. (2008). Examining the relationship between race-based differential item functioning and item difficulty. Educational of Psychological Measurement,68, 537-553.

Shealy, R., & Stout, W. F. (1993). A model-based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from group differences and detects test bias/DIF as well

as item bias/DIF. Psychometrika, 58, 159-194

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

Shih, C.-L., &Wang, W.-C. (2009). Differential item functioning detection using the multiple indicators, multiple causes method with a pure short anchor. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 184-199.

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, 1292-1306.

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

Thissen, D. (2001). IRTLRDIF v.2.0b: Software for the computation of the statistics involved in item response theory likelihood-ratio tests for differential item functioning. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1988). Use of item response theory in the study of group differences in trace lines. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 147-169). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

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

Wang, W.-C.(2008). Assessment of differential item functioning. Journal of Applied Measurement, 9, 387-408.

Wang, W.-C & Yeh, Y.-L. (2003). Effects of anchor item methods on differential item functioning detection with the likelihood ratio test. Applied Psychological

Woods, C. M. (2011). DIF Testing for Oridinal Items With Poly-SIBTEST, the Mantel and GMH Tests, and IRT-LR-DIF When the Latent Distribution Is Nonnonrmal for Both Groups. Applied Psychological Measurement, 35(2), 145-164.

Zieky, M. (2003). A DIF primer. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. DIF primer. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.