BACKGROUND: In the latest release of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, Differential Item Functioning (DIF) is considered as validity evidence based on internal structure. However, there are no indications of how to design a DIF study as a validation study. In this paper, we propose relating DIF to all sources of validity evidence, and provide a general conceptual framework for transforming “typical” DIF studies into validation studies. METHOD: We perform a comprehensive review of the literature and make theoretical and practical proposals. RESULTS: The article provides arguments in favour of addressing DIF detection and interpretation as validation studies, and suggestions for conducting DIF validation studies. DISCUSSION: The combination of quantitative and qualitative data within a mixed methods research perspective, along with planning DIF studies as validation studies, can help improve the validity of test score interpretations.
BACKGROUND: In the latest release of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, Differential Item Functioning (DIF) is considered as validity evidence based on internal structure. However, there are no indications of how to design a DIF study as a validation study. In this paper, we propose relating DIF to all sources of validity evidence, and provide a general conceptual framework for transforming “typical” DIF studies into validation studies. METHOD: We perform a comprehensive review of the literature and make theoretical and practical proposals. RESULTS: The article provides arguments in favour of addressing DIF detection and interpretation as validation studies, and suggestions for conducting DIF validation studies. DISCUSSION: The combination of quantitative and qualitative data within a mixed methods research perspective, along with planning DIF studies as validation studies, can help improve the validity of test score interpretations.
Authors: Eduardo Fonseca-Pedrero; Felix Inchausti; Alicia Pérez-Albéniz; Javier Ortuño-Sierra Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Natalia Cantó-Sancho; Elena Ronda; Julio Cabrero-García; Stefano Casati; Angela Carta; Stefano Porru; Mar Seguí-Crespo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: María Guillot-Valdés; Alejandro Guillén-Riquelme; Juan Carlos Sierra; Gualberto Buela-Casal Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 4.614