Adams, R. J., & Rowe, K. J. (1988). Item bias. In J.P.Keeves (ed.) Educational research, methodology, and
measurement: An international handbook. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Angoff, W. H. (1982). Use of difficulty and discrimination indices for detecting item bias. Handbook of methods
for detecting test bias, 96‐116.
Asil, M. (2010). Uluslararası Öğrenci Değerlendirme Programı (PISA) 2006 Öğrenci Anketinin Kültürler Arası
Eşdeğerliğinin İncelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, yayınlanmamış doktora tezi.
Bakan Kalaycıoğlu, D. ve Kelecioğlu, H. (2011). Öğrenci Seçme Sınavı'nın madde yanlılığı açısından incelenmesi.
Eğitim ve Bilim, 36 (161), 3-12.
Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi
Journal of Research in Education and Teaching
Ağustos 2016 Cilt:5 Sayı:3 Makale No: 22 ISSN: 2146‐9199
239
Camilli, G. & Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. London: Sage Publications
Clauser, B. E.,& Mazor, K. M. (1998). Using statistical procedure to identify differential item functioning test
items. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 31‐44.
Cleary, T. A. (1968). Test bias: Prediction of grades of Negro and white students in integrated colleges. Journal
of Educational Measurement, 5(2), 115‐124.
Devine, P. J., & Raju N. S. (1982). Extent of overlap among four item bias methods. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 42, 1049–1066.
Ellis, B. B., & Kimmel, H. D. (1992). Identification of unique cultural response patterns by means of item
response theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(2), 177.
Fidalgo, A. M., & Madeira, J. M. (2008). Generalized Mantel‐Haenszel methods for differential item functioning
detection. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 940–958.
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 Associates.
Gök, B., Atalay Kabasakal, K. ve Kelecioğlu, H. (2015). PISA 2009 Öğrenci Anketi Tutum Maddelerinin Kültüre
Göre Değişen Madde Fonksiyonu Açısından İncelenmesi. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme
Dergisi, 5/1, Yaz 2014, 72-87.
Kamata, A. and Vaughn, B. (2004). An introduction to differential item functioning analysis. Learning
Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 2(7), 49-69.
Kanje, A. (2007). Using logistic regression to detect bias when multiple groups are tested. South African Journal
of Psychology, 37, 47–61.
Kim, S.‐H., Cohen, A. S., & Park, T.‐H. (1995). Detection of differential item functioning in multiple groups.
Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 261–276.
Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Magis, D., Raîche, G., Béland, S., & Gérard, P. (2011). A generalized logistic regression procedure to detect
differential item functioning among multiple groups. International Journal of Testing, 11(4), 365‐386.
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.
Mellenbergh, G. J. (1982). Contingency table models for assessing item bias. Journal of Educational Statistics, 7,
105–118.
Mellenberg, G. J. (1989). Item bias and item response theory. International Journal of Educational Research:
Applications of Item Response Theory.13, 123–144.
MEB (2013). PISA 2012 Uluslararası Öğrenci Değerlendirme Programı Ulusal Ön Raporu. MEB, Ankara.
Osterlind, J. S. (1983). Test item bias. London: Sage Publications.
Penfield, R. D. (2001). Assessing differential item functioning among multiple groups: a comparison of three
Mantel‐Haenszel procedures. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 235–259.
Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi
Journal of Research in Education and Teaching
Ağustos 2016 Cilt:5 Sayı:3 Makale No: 22 ISSN: 2146‐9199
240
Raju, N. S. (1990). Determining the significance of estimated signed and unsigned areas between two item
response functions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 197–207.
Rodney. G. L., & Drasgow, F. (1990). Evaluation of two methods for estimating item response theory
parameters when assessing differential item functioning. Journal of Applied Psychology. 75, 164‐174.
Shealy, R.T., & Stout,W. (1993). A model based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from
group ability 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). Validity of approximation techniques for detecting item
bias. Journal of Educational Measurement.22, 77–105.
Somes, G.W. (1986). The generalized Mantel–Haenszel statistic. The American Statistician, 40, 106–108.
Su, Y. H., & Wang, W. C. (2005). Efficiency of the Mantel, generalized Mantel–Haenszel, and logistic
discriminant function analysis methods in detecting differential item functioning for polytomous items. Applied
Measurement in Education, 18(4), 313‐350.
Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression
procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 361–370.
Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1988). Use of item response theory in the study of group difference in
trace lines. In H.Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 147–170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Tittle, C. K. (1988).Test Bias. In J.P. Keeves, (ed.). Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An
international handbook. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A Handbook on the Theory and Methods of Differential Đtem Functioning (DIF): Logistic
Regression Modeling as a Unitary Framework for Binary and Likert-Type (Ordinal) Đtem Scores. Ottawa, ON:
Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.
Zwick, R., & Ercikan, K. (1989). Analysis of differential item functioning in the NAEP history assessment. Journal
of Educational Measurement, 26(1), 55-66.
Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com
