A confirmatory study of Differential Item Functioning on EFL reading comprehension

Authors

1 Shiraz University, Iran

2 Shiraz University; PhD Candidate, University of Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

The  present  study  aimed  at  investigating  DIF  sources  on  an  EFL  reading  comprehension
test.  Accordingly,  2  DIF  detection  methods,  logistic  regression  (LR)  and  item  response
theory  (IRT),  were  used  to  flag  emergent  DIF  of  203  (110  females  &  93  males)  Iranian
EFL examinees’ performance on a reading comprehension test. Seven hypothetical DIF
sources were examined in this regard: text familiarity, gender, topic/text interest, guessing,
and  the  social  variables  of  location,  income,  and  educational  status.  Only  LR,  for  gender
and  text  familiarity,  could  preempt  DIF  with  gender  supporting  the  gendered-text  effect
while  text  familiarity  benefiting,  inversely,  the  participants  with  low  level  of  text
familiarity.  For  interest  in  topic,  LR  found  a  single  item  favoring  the  group  with  higher
levels  of  interest  and  the  IRT  model  detected  DIF  in  either  extreme.  Regarding  guessing
and  income,  the  LR  indicated  DIF  supporting  the  low  guessers  and  high-income  group
whereas IRT, conversely,  showed DIF  favoring the high guessers and low-income  group.
For  location  and  education  both  methods,  correspondingly,  demonstrated  DIF  for  the
expensive  location  and  educated  groups.  Finally,  the  differential  test  functioning  result
made it clear that only three sources of DIF (gender, income, & interests) were transferred
to the test level. The findings could support a proportional effect of DIF sources.

Keywords

Main Subjects


Introduction
Differential item functioning (DIF) occurs
when  equally  knowledgeable  individuals
from  different  subgroups  are  of  different
likelihood  of  correctly  answering  (or
endorsing)  an  item  (Shepard,  Camilli,  &
Averill,  1981).  DIF  is  a  necessary  but  not
sufficient  condition  for  bias  (Zumbo,
1999).  In  other  words,  bias  only  exists
when  the  groups  illegitimately  differ  in
their  performance  on  an  item.  Because
items  indicating  DIF  can  function  as  a
threat to the validity of a test, DIF analysis
has  become  an  essential  step  in  the
validation  of  a  test  (Camilli  &  Shepard,
1994;  Zumbo,  2007;  Zumbo,  &  Rupp,
2004)  especially  in  high-stakes  testing
situations (Pae & Park, 2006).
 
The present study was an attempt to focus
on  several  hypothetical  factors  that  may
cause  DIF  on  a  reading  comprehension
test.  As  pinpointed  by  McNamara  and
Roever,  (2006),  the  literature  lacks
research on social or contextual sources of
DIF.  As  such,  several  hypothetical  social
sources  of  DIF  were  also  brought  into
focus in this study.    
 
Background  
Many  studies  have  been  conducted  on
DIF.  The  majority  of  these  studies  have
focused  on  gender  or  ethnicity  and  only
 
some  have  shed  light  on  other  sources  of
DIF.  Among  the  studies  conducted,
mention  could  be  made  of  those  focusing
on  gender  (e.g.,  Li  &  Suen,  2012;  Pae,
2012;  Ryan  &  Bachman,  1992;  Takala  &
Kaftandjieva,  2000),  ethnicity  (e.g.,
Hammer,  Pennock-Roman,    Rzasa,  &
Tomblin,  2002;  Stoneberg,  2004),
language background (e.g.  Harding, 2011;
Li  &  Suen,  2012),  topic  familiarity  or
content  knowledge  (Pae,  2004),  and  field
of study (Barati, Ketabi, & Ahmadi, 2006;
Näsström (2004)).  
 
Such  studies  have  indicated  that  for
example  east  Asian  test  takers  outperform
test  takers  from  European-language
backgrounds  on  Michigan  English
Language Assessment Battery (Li & Suen,
2012);  that  females  tend  to  outperform
males  in  tests  of  verbal  and  written
abilities, especially if constructed response
items  are  included  (Willingham  &  Cole,
1997);  they  also  outperform  males  on
aesthetics,  human  affairs,  and
contextualized  reading  items  (Carlton  &
Harris, 1992) on the mood, impression, or
tone  items  of  a  reading  passage  (Pae,
2012), on items related to human relations,
human  rights,  aesthetic  and  on  items
referring  to  stereotypical  female  activities
(O'Neill  &  McPeek,  1993;  Sadker  &
Sadker,  1994),  whereas  males  outperform
females  on  antonyms,  and  analogies
(Carlton & Harris, 1992), on reading items
of  inferencing  type  (Carlton  &  Harris,
1992;  Lawrence  &  Curley,  1989),    on
items  involving  visualization  and  items
calling  upon  knowledge  and  experiences
acquired  outside  of  school  (Hamilton  &
Snow,  1998),  and  on  items  related  to
science  and  on  items  referring  to
stereotypical  male  activities  (O'Neill  &
McPeek, 1993; Sadker & Sadker, 1994).  
 
The  results  of  studies  on  DIF  have
sometimes been contradictory and far from
being conclusive. Furthermore, the studies
have  been  limited  to  few  sources  of  DIF
and  lack  of  research  is  felt  on
social/contextual  sources  of  DIF
(McNamara  &  Roever,  2006).  Very  few
studies have focused on how social factors
may  create  DIF  on  different  tests.  The
present study tried to fill this research gap
by  focusing  on  a  number  of  social  factors
that  may  explain  DIF  on  a  reading
comprehension  test.  It  also  tried  to  shed
more  light  on  a  number  of  non-social
factors mentioned as sources of DIF in the
literature. As such, the following questions
were put forward in the current study:
 
1.  Can  text  familiarity,  gender,
interest,  guessing,  and  contextual
variables  (location,  income,  and
educational  status)  function  as
sources  of  DIF  on  EFL  reading
comprehension items?
2.  To  what  extent  do  the  results  of
DIF  detection  methods  (IRT  and
LR) converge?
3.  Can  item-level  differential
performance  manifest  itself  at  the
scale-level analysis?
 
Method
Design of the study
Unlike  the  DIF  studies  in  the  literature
which  select  an  exploratory  approach
toward  the  analysis  of  DIF  sources,  the
present  study  benefited  from  a  mixed
exploratory-confirmatory  approach  in  this
regard;  that  is,  in  dealing  with  social
sources  of  DIF,  an  exploratory  approach
was  adopted  in  which  the  test  was
administered  to  the  test  takers  who  were
divided  into  groups  based  on  the  social
variables (location, income, & educational
level)  and  then  their  performance  on  the
test  was  analyzed  for  instances  of  DIF.
This  approach  is  the  one  adopted  in  DIF
studies in the literature. The present study,
however, adopted a confirmatory approach
in  studying  sources  of  DIF  mentioned  in
the  literature;  that  is,  instead  of  running
the test and then searching for the probable
sources  of  DIF,  the  study,  following
McNamara  and  Roever's  (2006)
suggestion, selected the most cited sources
 
of  DIF  in  the  literature  and  intentionally
included  them  in  the  reading  test  to  see
whether they really manifest themselves in
the DIF study. The assumption was that if
such  claimed  variables  are  really  sources
of DIF, then an item which embraces such
variables  should  necessarily  indicate  DIF.
A  counterargument  for  this  will  hold  that
such  sources  may  be  context  and  test
specific  and  hence  do  not  necessarily
manifest  themselves  in  DIF  analysis  of
any test in any context.
 
Participants
The participants of this study included 203
English  as  a  Foreign  Language  (EFL)
learners  (93  males  and  110  females)
selected  from  among  around  300
intermediate-level  students  at  Shiraz
University  Language  Center  (SULC)  in
the  spring  semester  in  2011.  Only  those
participants  who  based  on  their  final
scores in previous semesters were roughly
identified as intermediate were selected for
the  study.  Due  to  the  administrative
limitations,  only  the  participants’  scores
on  the  regular  tests  administered  by  the
institute at the end of each term were taken
into  account  and  no  specific  proficiency
test  was  employed.  However,  it  should  be
mentioned  that  this  was  quite  enough  for
the  purpose  of  the  present  study  because
the  DIF  software  (BILOG  MG)
automatically  estimates  the  participants’
proficiency based on the test used for DIF
analysis  and  does  not  need  a  separate  test
to be used for proficiency. The reason why
we  tried  to  roughly  homogenize  the
participants based on their proficiency was
only  to  make  sure  that  the  test  used  for
DIF  analysis  was  not  too  far  from  their
level  of  proficiency  and  hence  more
realistic  answers  would  be  given  by  the
participants;  otherwise,  DIF  studies  rely
on a single test.
 
Instrumentation
Reading comprehension test
A  reading  comprehension  test  was
developed  for  the  purpose  of  the  study.
The  passages  of  the  reading  test  were
originated from Anderson’s (2007, 2008)
books  entitled  “ACTIVE  Skills  for
Reading: Book 2” and “ACTIVE Skills for
Reading:  Book  3”.  The  books  were
selected from among a series of four books
to  fit  the  intermediate  proficiency  level.
Furthermore,  as  these  books  are  not
usually  taught  in  the  Iranian  language
institutes  or  universities,  there  was  a  very
low  chance  for  the  students  to  have  seen
the  texts  before.  Attempt  was  made  to
include  the  hypothetical  sources  of  DIF.
To  this  end,  first  of  all,  on  the  basis  of
gender-based familiarity  with text topic, 6
short passages were chosen. Following the
literature  (Bugel  &  Buunk,  1996;
Newman,  Groom,  Handelman,  &
Pennebaker,  2008;  O’Neill  &  McPeek,
1993)  some  topics  were  hypothesized  to
be  gender-stereotypical;  that  is,  such
topics  as  practical  affairs,  money,
mechanical  tools,  soccer,  occupation  were
considered male favorable, whereas topics
related  to  humanities,  social  sciences,
aesthetics  and  human  relations,  wedding,
and  household  chores  were  considered
female favorable. Therefore, two passages
were  taken  as  male-friendly  (What  does  a
Million Dollars Buy? & Meet Freddy Adu,
Soccer  Sensation),  two  passages  as
female-friendly  (Wedding  Customs  &  The
Right  Job  for  Your  Personality),  and  two
others  as  gender-neutral  (Are  Human
Beings  Getting  Smarter?  &  A  Different
Kind of Spring Break).  
 
To develop the test, each of the 6 passages
was  followed  by  five  commonly  used
questions  in  reading  comprehension  tests
(Broukal,  2007).  They  were  items  asking
for  details  (facts),  reference  to  a  word  or
phrase,  vocabulary  knowledge,  main  idea
(theme),  and  inference  (logical
conclusion). Therefore, the final test was a
30-item  reading  comprehension  test.  Two
faculty  members  who  were  experts  in  L2
language  testing  and  had  worked  on  DIF
checked the reading texts and questions in
line  with  the  suggestions  made  in  the
 
literature  to  make  sure  that  the  final  test
served  the  purpose  of  the  study.  The
reliability  of  the  test  was  also  estimated
through  KR21which  turned  out  to  be  .52.
The moderate  reliability  observed was not
far  from  logic  as  due  to  the  confirmatory
nature  of  the  study  the  sources  of  error
variance  (DIF  sources)  were  intentionally
included in the test which could noticeably
decrease  the  reliable  variance  proportion
in the measurement equation.  
 
DIF questionnaire
The  second  instrument  was  a  very  short
questionnaire the first part of which was a
set  of  bio-data  questions  asking  the  test
takers  to  provide  information  about  their
gender, residency neighborhood, families’
monthly income, and parents’ educational
level.  The  second  part,  however,  was
attached  to  the  end  of  each  passage  and
comprised these questions:
 
a)  How  familiar  was  the  text topic  or
content to you?
b)  How  much  were  you  interested  in
the reading topic?
c)  Which  item  did  you  answer  by
guessing?
 
The  purpose  of  this  section  was  to  collect
information  on  the  participants’  topic
interest,  topic  familiarity  and  guessing.
They  were expected to indicate their level
of  familiarity  with  and  interest  in  the  text
by  selecting  one  of  the  five  options  very
much,  much,  to  some  extent,  little,  and
very little/ none.
 
Data collection procedure
The factors included in  DIF analysis were
literature-based  variables  hypothesized  to
contribute  to  test  takers’  differential
performance  on  EFL  reading  tests.  They
were  gender, text familiarity, text interest,
guessing,  location  in  two  levels
(down=living  in  less  expensive
neighborhoods  with  a  housing  price  of
$700-$1500  per  squared  meter;  up=living
in  the  expensive  neighborhoods  with  a
housing price of $2200-$2800 per squared
meter),  income  in  two  levels  (low=less
than  $1000  per  month,  high=  more  than
$1000 per month), and educational level in
two  levels  (academically  educated,
academically uneducated).  
 
Data analysis  
It  is  recommended  that  more  than  one
method  of  DIF  analysis  be  employed  in
DIF  studies  to  come  to  more  dependable
results (Camilli, 2006; Camilli & Shepard,
1994;  Pae,  2012,  Uiterwijk  &  Vallen,
2005).  In  line  with  this  suggestion,  the
present study employed two methods: (a) a
classical method: logistic regression  (LR),
(b) 1-p item response theory (IRT) model.
This could add to the dependability of the
results and made it possible to compare the
degree  of  correspondence  between  the
results of the two methods.  
 
Results and discussion
DIF analysis based on Logistic Regression  
Overall,  about  47%  (14  items)  of  the
whole  test  displayed  DIF  through  the  use
of LR. Only three of these items indicated
large  DIF  and  the  majority  indicated
moderate  DIF  based  on  the  criteria
recommended by Hidalgo and  Lopez-Pina
(2004); that is, negligible DIF: ΔR
2
 < 0.13,
moderate  DIF:  0.13    ΔR
2
  0.26),  and
large DIF: ΔR
2
> 0.26. In what follows the
results  of  DIF  analysis  based  on  LR  are
presented  in  detail  for  each  of  the
hypothetical sources.
 
DIF based on gender
As previously mentioned, the reading texts
were  selected  with  an  eye  toward  the
gender differences in topic familiarity of a
reading  test  (e.g.,  Brantmeier,  2003;  Pae,
2012).  Overall,  five  items  (17%  of  the
whole test) were flagged for DIF based on
gender. The results of LR indicated that in
the  female-friendly  passages  13.33%  of
the items; that is, four items (two inference
items,  one  vocabulary  item,  &  one
reference  item,  )  favored  females.  In  the
male-friendly  passages  only  a  single  item
 
(3.33%  of  the  items)  which  was  a
vocabulary  item  favored  males  over
females;  and  in  the  neutral  passages  no
item  indicated  DIF  in  favor  of  a  gender.
The  results  of  DIF  overall,  functioned  in
line  with  the  literature  on  gender-based
DIF  that  there  exists  DIF  or  differential
performance  on  gendered  texts  (e.g.,
Carlton  &  Harris,  1992;  Lawrence  &
Curley, 1989). In other words, the females
got  advantage  of  the  female-friendly  texts
and  the  males  were  favored  by  male-friendly  texts.  Neither  group  was  reported
to  gain  benefit  from  the  gender-neutral
texts.  More  specifically,  the  results
partially  echoed  those  of  the  study  by
Newman  et  al.  (2008)  that  most  of  the
differences  between  men  and  women  are
related  to  the  application  of  function
words  (e.g.,  reference-type  item  in  the
present  study)  and  lexical  words  (e.g.,
vocabulary-type  items  in  the  present
study).   
 
DIF  based  on  the  familiarity  with  text
topic or content
One  part  of  familiarity  was  discussed
under  the  rubric  of  gender-based  DIF.
However,  mention  was  made  that  that
particular analysis did not find any DIF for
gender-neutral texts. Thus, familiarity was
also  considered  separately  with  the
intention  of  its  effect  on  the  items
dispensed  with  the  gender  influence.  The
idea  was  that  although  two  passages  were
claimed  to  be  female-friendly,  two  male-friendly  and  two  neutral  based  on  the
literature,  still  individual  differences  were
possible  in  terms  of  their  familiarity  with
the  texts  regardless  of  their  gender.  For
example, saying that a text is more female-friendly  based  on  the  topic  does  not
eliminate  the  chance  that  some  males
could be familiar with such texts. As such,
the  study  focused  on  familiarity  with  the
text  topic  as  a  factor  for  differential
performance  regardless  of  the  gender.  
Therefore,  the  participants  were  divided
into three groups based on their familiarity
with  each  text  (highly-familiar,
moderately-familiar,  and  slightly-familiar).  This  was  done  based  on  the
participants’ answers to the questionnaire
items  indicating  their  level  of  familiarity
with  each  text.  Therefore,  those  selecting
very  much  and  much  options  were
considered  as  the  highly-familiar  group,
those  selecting  to  some  extent  as  the
moderately-familiar  and  those  selecting
little and very little as the slightly-familiar
group.  Then  DIF  analysis  was  performed.
Unlike the results of DIF based on gender,
the  results  of  DIF  based  on  familiarity
found  some  traces  of  DIF  in  the  gender-neutral texts. Overall, topic familiarity was
found  to  be  the  source  of  DIF  for  three
items,  two  of  which  were  related  to  the
gender-neutral texts. Therefore, the results
were not in line with the results of gender-based  DIF.    It  is  therefore  manifest  that,
with  three  items  (10%  of  the  whole  test)
indicating  DIF,  the  familiarity  was  not
supported  to  have  a  leading  role  in  DIF
occurrence  since  only  one  inference-type
item (3.33% of the whole test) favored the
moderately-familiar  group  and  two  items
of  details-  and  vocabulary-type  (6.66%  of
the  whole  test)  benefited  the  slightly-familiar group.   
 
This  finding  is  against  the  literature  (e.g.,
Sadker  &  Sadker,  1994)  and  does  not
support  the  assumption  that  higher
familiarity  may  lead  to  higher  chances  of
endorsing  an  item  correctly.  Therefore,
taken  with  the  results  of  the  gender-based
DIF  together,  it  seems  that  gender
(focusing  on  gender-friendly  or  gender-stereotypical  texts)  will  provide  us  with  a
better  explanation  of  DIF.  In  other  words,
familiarity  is  better  to  be  considered
together  with  the  gender  effect  to  explain
the DIF on a test.  
 
DIF based on the interest in text topic
To avoid the possible bias, test developers
may  want  to  select  unfamiliar  text  topics,
but  by  doing  so  the  texts  may  not  be  so
interesting  and  relevant  to  the  test  taker
(Bachman, 1990).  The challenging task of
 
a test writer is to avoid either extreme, i.e.
to develop topics that are very general and
innocuous and at the same time interesting
and relevant.  Familiarity and interest pose
difficulty  in  the  design,  development,  and
analysis  of  reading  tests.  Thus,  we  can
hypothesize  that  the  familiar  texts  would
be interesting to a particular group often to
the  detriment  of  the  other.  To  study  the
effect  of  interest  as  a  source  of  DIF,  like
what we did for the familiarity, at first we
divided  the  participants  into  three  groups
based on their interest in each text; that is,
highly-interested,  moderately-interested,
and  slightly-interested.  This  was  done  for
each  text  separately  and  then  DIF  was
checked  for  each  item.    Contrary  to  our
expectations,  the  notion  of  interest  in  text
topic  did  not  turn  out  to  be  an  influential
source  of  DIF  because  only  one  item
(3.33%  of  the  whole  items)  which  was  a
vocabulary  item  favored  the  highly-interested group over the others.  
 
DIF based on guessing
It  goes  without  saying  that  guessing  is  a
hypothetical source of DIF in  an MC test.
In this study, the test takers were asked to
inform  the  researcher  whether  for  each
passage  with  five  items,  they  answered  a
particular  item  by  chance.  That  is,  they
were  asked  to  say  if  they  guessed  at  a
particular item or not based on which they
were  divided  into  three  groups  of  low,
mid, and high guessers. The results of DIF
analysis flagged five items (16.66% of the
whole  test)  based  on  guessing  which
favored  low-guessers.  In  other  words,  the
results  indicated  that  being  a  member  of
the  non-guesser  (or  low-guesser)  group
increased  the  probability  of  endorsing
these  items  correctly.  It  seems  that  those
who had guessed in this study were mostly
wild  guessers  and  thus  their  guessing  did
not  help  them.    Guessing,  therefore,  was
not  supported  to  play  a  significant  role  in
DIF  results  as  low/non-guessers  were
more successful.
 
 
DIF based on location
Only  one  item  was  found  to  support  the
idea  that  the  test  takers'  neighborhood
(location) can function as a source of DIF.
This  item  which  was  a  vocabulary  item
functioned  to  the  favor  of  those  living  in
rich  neighborhoods.  Thus,  living  in
different  neighborhoods  (and  by
generalization  in  different  cultural
settings) was corroborated by a single item
(3.33  %  of  the  whole  test)  to  function
significantly in the test takers’ differential
performance  on  the  vocabulary-type
reading  item.  This  finding,  though  based
on  a  single  item,  supports  Zumbo  &
Gelin's (2005) idea that by ignoring socio-geographic  differences  one  may  lose  the
whole picture of DIF.   
 
DIF based on income
Some  social  groups,  as  a  result  of  high
income,  may  have  access  to  more  high-quality educational opportunities which, in
turn,  can  lead  to  their  gradually  better
performance on language tests. Income, in
this  study,  emerged  as  a  source  of  DIF  in
two  items.  One  of  the  items  was  an
inference-type  item  and  the  other  one  a
main-idea  item.  Both  items  indicated
much  higher  probability  of  endorsing  the
items  correctly  for  those  from  higher-income  families.  Thus,  income  was
supported only by two items (6.66% of the
whole  test)  to  distinguish  between  test
takers in performing on the main idea- and
inference-type reading items.  
 
DIF based on the educational level
Unlike  the  location  and  income  variables
that  reverberate  the  community-level
contextual factors, the family (or parental)
educational  level  is  less  susceptible  to  the
community  at  large  and  compares  test
takers  at  the  individual  level  (Zumbo  &
Gelin,  2005).  To  take  note  of  this
contextual  factor,  the  test  takers  were
asked  to  report  whether  their  families  or
parents  were  academically  educated  or
uneducated. The results of DIF analysis in
this  regard  indicated  that  only  one  item
 
(inference-type  item)  presented  this
contextual factor as a significant predictor
of  DIF  in  favor  of  the  test  takers  coming
from  educated  families.  Thus,  a  small
portion  of  the  test  (3.33%)  supported  the
advantage of the educated group.  
 
IRT analysis
Overall,  33.33%  (10  items)  of  the  whole
test displayed DIF through the use of IRT.
The results of IRT analysis for gender and
familiarity  variables  did  not  show  any
meaningful  and  statistically  significant
DIF.  As  such,  in  what  follows  the
remaining DIF sources (interest, guessing,
location,  income,  &  educational  level)  are
taken  into  consideration.  In  each  section
the  difficulty  differences  between  the
contrasting  groups,  called  group  threshold
differences,  and  the  standard  error  of
measurement  are  provided  for  each  item.
Items for which the threshold difference is
roughly  twice  (1.96)  or  more  the  size  of
the  standard  error  display  DIF  at  the  p  =
.05  level  (Thissen,  Steinberg,  &  Wainer,
1993).  The  only  parameter  to  be  attended
to in this program was the difficulty value
(b) and therefore the lower threshold value
for  a  particular  group  means  that  the  item
was  easier  for  them.  That  is,  the  negative
or  positive  direction  of  the  threshold
differences  indicates  which  particular
subgroup was favored.  
 
DIF based on the interest in text topic
The  IRT  analysis  revealed  the  threshold
differences output  for the interest in texts.
As Table 1 indicates (see Appendix), items
1,  3,  5,  20,  and  27  displayed  DIF.  The
table  indicates  that  in  both  mid-low  and
high-low  comparisons,  Item  1  functioned
as  a  DIF  item  (Thissen  et  al.,  1993).  The
negative  threshold  values  in  both  cases
indicate  that  the  item  (details  type)  was
more  difficult  for  the  low  group  than  the
mid  and  high  groups.  Thus,  those  with
high and moderate interest in Text 1 were
favored  by  item  1.  For  item  3  the  results
demonstrate  that  in  both  cases  (high-low,
high-mid)  the  item  was  more  difficult  for
the  high  group.  Thus,  it  is  concluded  that
the  low  and  mid  groups  were  favored  by
Item  3.  By  the  same  token,  the  results
indicate  that  for  Item  5,  the  low  and  mid
groups benefited from the item. In item 20,
the  negative  threshold  difference  (-0.792)
indicates  that  for  the  low  group  the  item
was  more  difficult;  and  hence  the  high-interest  group  was  favored  by  this
inference-type item. Finally, for item 27 it
is  clear  that  the  high  group  was  favored
because  their  threshold  was  lower  than
that  of  the  mid  group.  The  detection  of
16.66  %  of  the  whole  items  (five  out  of
30)  as  including  DIF  demonstrates  a
greater  proportion  of  interest  effect  in  the
IRT analysis in comparison with the other
factors.
 
DIF based on guessing
The  negative  threshold  differences  for
items 11 and 14 and the positive difference
for  item  15  indicate  that  all  the  high
guessers  had  more  likelihood  to  get  the
details-  (11),  main  idea-  (14),  and
inference-type  (15)  items  right.  Thus,
guessing  as  a  speculative  source  of  DIF
indeed  made  the  MC  items  function  in
favor of the high guessers.  
 
DIF based on location
Regarding  the  residential  neighborhoods
of the respondents (up vs. down) only item
4  (3.33%  of  the  whole  test)  revealed
significant  differential  performance
between  the  groups  (1.417).  Thus,  the  up
group  was  reported  to  take  advantage  of
this main idea-type item.  
 
DIF based on income
Out of the 30 items, only one item (3.33%
of  the  whole  test)  displayed  DIF  and
supported  the  hypothetical  function  of
income  in  the  IRT  analysis.  Only  item  19
was  flagged  for  DIF.  The  negative
threshold  difference  for  this  main  idea-type  item  makes  it  clear  that  the  low-income  group  found  the  item  easier  to
endorse.  In  fact,  those  test  takers  coming
from low-income families were favored by
 
this particular item. As you will see in the
DTF  section,  income  was  one  of  the
sources  transferred  from  the  item  level  to
the test level and had a proportional effect
on the test bias.  
 
DIF based on educational level
The  comparison  between  the  difficulty
parameters  of  the  educated-  and
uneducated-family  test  takers  indicated
that only item 5 (inference type) displayed
significant  DIF.  The  positive  threshold
difference  reveals  that  upon  answering
item  5,  the  educated  group  was  favored
because  for  them  the  item  was  easier  to
endorse.  Therefore,  only  3.33%  of  the
whole  items  supported  the  speculative
effect  of  the  parental  educational  level  on
differential  performance  of  the  test  takers
on reading comprehension.  
 
Comparing the LR and IRT results
The  overall  results  of  DIF  analyses  are
summarized  in  Table  2.  The  first  column
represents  the  hypothetical  DIF  sources;
the  second  and  the  third  illustrate  DIF
identified  through  LR  and  IRT
respectively.  The  last  column  shows  the
items  identified  by  both  methods  and
therefore  indicates  the  agreement  between
the two methods. 

As the above table indicates, only items 5
and 14 were identified as DIF by both DIF
detection  methods.  This  indicates  a  low
level  of  correspondence  between  the
results  of  the  two  methods.  The  IRT
framework  found  no  DIF  related  to  the
gender  and  familiarity  variables.  With
respect  to  the  interest  variable  both
techniques  could  flag  some  DIF  items.
Through  a  small  portion  of
correspondence  between  the  models,
interest as a source of DIF, which acts in a
balanced  correspondence  with  familiarity
in  reading  comprehension  (Bachman,
1990), was reported to function in a mixed
direction,  i.e.  leading  some  items  to  favor
interested  test  takers  and  some  others  to
benefit the uninterested ones. Guessing, as
a  source  of  DIF  in  MC  reading  items  was
identified  by  both  methods  but  with
different functions. That is, the LR method
indicated  that  low  guessers  were  more
successful,  but  the  IRT  model  reported
conversely  that  the  DIF  items  were  in
favor  of  those  test  takers  who  guessed
highly  at  the  answers,  hence  a  total
divergence between the two methods. The
results  of  both  methods  for  location,  in  a
complete  correspondence,  indicated  that
those living in the up neighborhoods were
favored.  In  a  similar  vein,  both
frameworks  identified  a  single  item  (item
5),  in  a  complete  convergence,  as
displaying education-oriented DIF in favor
of  those  coming  from  educated  families.
However,  for  income-based  DIF,  the
methods stood in a sharp contrast.  In fact,
unlike  LR,  IRT  found  that  those  coming
from  the  low-income  families  were
favored.  
 
Let  us  interpret  what  we  have  come  up
with so far in two parts. First, as the above
table  depicts  the  two  methods  overlap  in
the  preemption  of  only  two  DIF  items.
Why  is  there  so  much  variance  between
them? Why are their results not supportive
of  each  other?  This  finding  could  be
explained in terms of the sample size.  It is
mentioned that for  binary  items  at  least  
200    people    per    group    is    required    for
LR  to  function  well  and  smaller    sample 
 
sizes  could  deteriorate    the    results  
(Zumbo, 1999). Further explanation of this
finding,  may  come  from  the  significance
level used for DIF analysis. Usually IRT is
more accurate and does much better with a
smaller  sample  size  than  LR  in  flagging
items  for  DIF.  So  a  Bonferroni  correction
test  could  be  useful  to  apply  to  the  LR
analysis  results  for  more  careful  analysis
(Alavi  &  Karami,  2010;  Runnels,  2013;
Thompson, 2006). This can lead to a lower
number  of  items  to  be  identified  as  DIF.
However, this procedure was not of much
help  in  the  present  study  to  resolve  the
differences  in  the  results  of  IRT  and  LR
DIF  analyses  because  the  differences  did
not lie in the number of items rather in the
type of items.
 
However,  overall  the  results  of  the  two
methods should be considered together, as
there  would  be  no  method  which  is
foolproof  with  all  samples  and  for  all
contexts.  Both  methods,  likewise,
indicated  DIF  related  to  the  contextual
factors  despite  the  low  reputation  of  the
factors  in  the  literature.  Furthermore,  the
presence  of  more  DIF  related  to  guessing
rendered  it  as  a  very  important  source  of
DIF.  
 
Second,  of  all  the  sources  in  the  study
guessing caused the most DIF followed by
interest, gender, familiarity, and contextual
factors. The study centered around reading
comprehension  tests  and  that  is  why  the
emergence of guessing DIF for MC items,
interest  in  topics,  and  gender  DIF  for
gendered passages was not unconceivable.
Those  sources  that  could  be
manipulatively  included  in  the  research
yielded  the  results  much  more  in  keeping
with  the  literature  than  those  factors  over
which,  in  an  ex  post  facto  manner,  the
researchers  had  no  control,  i.e.  the
contextual (social) factors.  
 
 
 
Analyzing  differential  test  functioning
(DTF)
The presence of DIF items is considered to
be a threat to the test validity to the extent
that  it  manifests  itself  in  the  scale-level
differential  performance  (Pae  &  Park,
2006;  Zumbo,  2003).  The  results  of  a
multiple-regression  analysis  indicated  that
although  the  effect  of  the  variables  on  the
total  score  was  significant,  only  three
variables  (gender,  income,  and  interest)
were  transferred  from  DIF  to  DTF  level
and  added  to  the  complexity  of  the  DTF
analysis  (Pae  and  Park,  2006;  Takala  &
Kaftandjieva,  2000).  The  remaining  DIF
sources, like the results of Zumbo’s (2003)
study,  did  not  emerge  in  the  scale-level
results.  
 
Conclusion
The  primary  purpose  of  this  study  was  to
move  beyond  the  hypothetical
interpretation  of  DIF  by  following
McNamara  and  Roever's  (2006)
suggestion,  conducting  an  empirical
confirmatory  study.  Its  outlook  was
toward  taking  advantage  of  the
falsification philosophy in a way that rival
hypothetical  DIF  sources  were  proposed
and none was presumed to predict the why
of DIF occurrence. Two DIF sources were
included in the reading test and the others
were  checked  through  a  questionnaire
attached  to  the  end  of  each  subtest
(passage). The study could not support the
notion  of  familiarity  with  text  topic  as  a
major  source  of  DIF.  For  gender  only  the
LR  model  could  detect  some  male-  and
female-friendly DIF items. With the small
number  of  DIF  items  for  the  interest,
guessing,  and  income-related  DIF,  the
results  of  the  two  DIF  detection  methods
stood  in  a  noticeable  contrast  to  each
other.  However,  the  methods  were  found
to be in a complete convergence in regard
to  the  location  and  family  educational
status.  Two  other  findings  were  related  to
the  item  type  and  bias  in  the  test.  The
results indicated that gender could have an
impact  on  reference-  and  vocabulary-type

reading items. Furthermore, the DTF result
made  it  clear  that  of  all  the  sources,  only
three factors (gender, income, & interests)
were transferred to the test level.  
The  findings  of  the  study  overall  may
warn  language  teachers  and  test
developers  about  failing  to  pay  due
attention to DIF on reading comprehension
tests. This would be double problematic in
criterion-referenced  tests  where  the
number  and  size  of  DIF  items  can  greatly
affect  the  mastery  and  nonmastery
decisions  made  based  on  a  single  cutoff
score.  Even  more  problematic  would  be
ignoring  DIF  on  high  stakes  tests  which
are  usually  used  for  gate-keeping
purposes.    The  stigma  of  failing  in  such
tests  may  distort  the  educational  life  (or
even  the  entire  personal  life)  of  the  test
takers.

Alavi,  S.  M.,  &  Karami,  H.  (2010).
Differential  Item  Functioning  and
ad  hoc  interpretations.  TELL,  4(1),
1-18.
Anderson, N. J. (2007). ACTIVE skills for
reading: Book 2. Boston: Thomson
ELT.
Anderson, N. J. (2008). ACTIVE skills for
reading: Book 3. Boston: Thomson
ELT.
Bachman,  L.  F.  (1990).  Fundamental
considerations in language testing.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barati, H.,  Ketabi, S.,  Ahmadi, A. (2006).
Differential  item  functioning  in
high-stakes tests: the effect of field
of study. IJAL, 19(2), 27-42.
Brantmeier,  C.  (2003).  Beyond  linguistics
knowledge:  Individual  differences
in  second  language  reading.
Foreign  Language  Annals,  36  (1),
33-43.  
Broukal, M. (2007). TOEFL reading flash.
NJ: Peterson’s.
Bugel,  K.  &  Buunk,  B.  P.  (1996).  Sex
differences in foreign language text
comprehension:  The  role  of
interests  and  prior  knowledge.  The
Modern Language Journal, 80 (1),
15-31.  
Camilli,  G.  (2006).  Test  fairness.  In  R.  L.
Brennan  (Ed.),  Educational
measurement  (pp.  221-256).
Westport:  American  Council  on
Education & Praeger Publishers.
Camilli,  G.  &  Shepard,  L.  A.  (1994).
Methods  for  identifying  biased  test
items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  
Carlton,  S.  T.  &  Harris,  A.  M.  (1992).
Characteristics  associated  with
differential item functioning on the
Scholastic  Aptitude  Test:  Gender
and  majority/minority  group
comparisons.  ETS  Research
Report. Princeton, NJ: ETS.  
Hamilton,  L.  S.,  &  Snow,  R.  E.  (1998).
Exploring  differential  item
functioning on science achievement
tests  (CSE  Technical  report  No.
483).  Los  Angeles:  Center  for
Research on Evaluation, Standards,
and Student testing.
Hammer,  C.  S.,  Pennock-Roman,  M.,
Rzasa, S. & Tomblin, J. B. (2002).
An analysis of the test of language
development-primary for item bias.
American  Journal  of  Speech-Language  Pathology,  11(3),  274-284.
Harding,  L.  (2011).  Accent,  listening
assessment  and  the  potential  for  a
shared-L1  advantage:  A  DIF
perspective.  Language  Testing,  29
(2), 163-180.  
Hidalgo,  M.  H.,  &  Lopez-Pina,  J.  A.
(2004).  Differential  item
functioning  detection  and  effect
size:  A  comparison  between
logistic  regression  and  Mantel-Hanszel  procedures.  Educational
and  Psychological  Measurement,
64, 903-915.
Lawrence,  I.  M.  &  Curley,  W.  E.  (1989).
Differential item function for males
and  females  on  SAT-Verbal
Reading subscore items: Follow-up
study.  Educational  Testing  Service

Research  Report.  Princeton,  NJ:
ETS.  
Li,  H.  &  Suen,  H.  K.  (2012).  Detecting
native  language  group  differences
at  the  subskills  level  of reading:  A
differential  skill  functioning
approach.  Language  Testing,  30
(2), 273-298.  
McNamara,  T.  &  Roever,  C.  (2006).
Language  testing:  The  social
dimension. Malden, MA & Oxford:
Blackwell.  
Näsström,  G.  (2004).  Differential  item
functioning  for  items  in  the
Swedish  national  test  in
mathematics  course.    Retrieved
from  http://www.
Vxu.se/msi/picme1o/L2ng.PDF.
Newman,  M.  L.,  Groom,  C.  J.,
Handelman,  L.  D.,  &  Pennebaker,
J. W. (2008). Gender differences in
language  use:  An  analysis  of  1400
text samples. Discourse Processes,
45, 211-236.
O’Neill, K. A. & McPeek, W. M. (1993).
Item  and  test  characteristics  that
are  associated  with  differential
item functioning. In P. W. Holland
&  H.  Wainer  (Eds.),  Differential
item  functioning  (255-276).
Hillsdale,  NJ:  Lawrence  Erlbaum
Associates.  
Pae,  T.  (2004).  Gender  effect  on  reading
comprehension  with  Korean  EFL
learners. System, 32 (3), 265-281.  
Pae,  T.  (2012).  Causes  of  gender  DIF  on
an  EFL  language  test:  A  multiple-data  analysis  over  nine  years.
Language Testing, 29 (4), 533-554.  
Pae, T.-I. & Park, G.-P. (2006). Examining
the  relationship  between
differential  item  functioning  and
differential  test  functioning.
Language Testing, 23 (4), 475-496.  
Runnels,  J.  (2013).  Measuring  differential
item  and  test  functioning  across
academic  disciplines.  Language
Testing  in  Asia,  3:9,
doi:10.1186/2229-0443-3-9.  
Ryan,  K.  &  Bachman,  L.  F.  (1992).
Differential  item  functioning  on
two  tests  of  EFL  proficiency.
Language Testing, 9 (1), 12-29.  
Sadker,  M.  &  Sadker,  D.  (1994).  Failing
at fairness. How our schools cheat
girls.  Toronto,  ON:  Simon  &
Schuster.
Shepard, L. A., Camilli, G., & Averill, M.
(1981).  Comparison  of  procedures
for  detecting  test-item  bias  with
both  internal  and  external  ability
criteria.  Journal  of  Educational
Statistics, 6, 317-375.  
Stoneberg,  B.  D.  (2004).  A  study  of
gender-based  and  ethnic-based
differential  item  functioning  (DIF)
in the spring 2003 Idaho Standards
achievement  Tests.  Applying  the
Simultaneous  Bias  Test  (SIBTEST)
and  the  Mantel-Haenszel  Chi
Square  Test.  Paper  for  EDMS  889
Measurement-Statistics  Practicum,
University  of  Maryland,  College
Park.  Retrieved  from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED4
83777.pdf
Takala, S. & Kaftandjieva, F. (2000). Test
fairness:  A  DIF  analysis  of  an  L2
vocabulary test. Language Testing,
17 (3), 323-340.  
Thissen,  D.,  Steinberg,  L.,  &  Wainer,  H.
(1993).  Detection  of  differential
item  functioning  using  the
parameters  of  item  response
models.  In  P.  W.  Holland  &  H.
Wainer  (Eds.),  Differential  item
functioning (pp. 67-113). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Thompson,  B  (2006).  Foundations  of
behavioral  statistics:  An  insight-based  approach.  London:  The
Guilford Press.  
Uiterwijk,  H.  &  Vallen,  T.  (2005).
Linguistic  sources  of  item  bias  for
second  generation  immigrants  in
Dutch  tests.  Language  Testing,
22(2), 211-234.  
Willingham, W. W. & Cole, N. S. (1997).
Fairness  issues  in  test  design  and

use.  In  W.W.  Willingham  &  N.  S.
Cole  (Eds.),  Gender  and  fair
assessment  (pp.  227  -  346).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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,
Canada:  Directorate  of  Human
Resources  Research  and
Evaluation,  Department  of
National Defense.  
 
Zumbo, B. D. (2003). Does item-level DIF
manifest  itself  in  scale-level
analyses?  Implications  for
translating  language  tests.
Language Testing, 20 (2), 136-147.  
Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Three generations of
DIF analysis: Considering where it
has  been,  where  it  is  now,  and
where  it  is  going.  Language
Assessment  Quarterly,  4(2),  223-233.
Zumbo,  B.  D.  &  Gelin,  M.  N.  (2005).  A
matter  of  test  bias  in  educational
policy  research:  bringing  the
context  into  picture  by
investigating
sociological/community  moderated
(or  mediated)  test  and  item  bias.
Journal  of  Educational  Research
and Policy Studies, 5, 1-23.  
Zumbo,  B.  D.  &  Rupp,  A.  A.  (2004).
Responsible  modeling  of
measurement  data  for  appropriate
inferences:  Important  advances  in
reliability and validity theory. In D.
Kaplan (Ed.), The SAGE handbook
of quantitative methodology for the
social  sciences  (PP.  73-92).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.