___

• Ackerman T. A. (1992). A didactic explanation of item bias,.item impact, and iteln validity from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of
• Educational Measurement, 15, 1, 13-24. Agresti, A. (1990). Categorical Data Analysis. New York : Whiley. ‘ ' s native ld , D.L. & Holland P.W. (1981). Item performance actos
• A ermalrclmguage groups on the Test of English as a Foreign Language (ETS Research Rep. No. 81-16). Princeton NJ : Educational Testing SerVice. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing.
• Washington, DC: American Psychological Assocıatıon. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement ın Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing.
• Washington, DC“. American Psychological Assocıation. American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association & National Council on Measurement ın Education. (1966). Standards for educational anti psychological test and manuals.
• Washington, DC: American Psychological Assocıatıon. American Psychological Association, American Educational İlle-search Association & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1974). Standards for educational anfi psychological test and manuals.
• Washington, DC: American Psychological Assocıatıon. Angoff, W. H., & Ford, S. F. (1973). Item race interaction on a test of scholastic aptitude. Journal of Educational Measurement, 10, 95-105.
• Bock, R. D. (1975). Multivariate Statistical IVIethods. New York: McGraw—Hill.
• Camilli, G. (1979). A critique of the chi square method for assessing item bias.
• Unpublished manuscript, University of Colorado, Laboratory of Educational Research, Boulder. Cardal], C., & Coffman, W. E. (1964). A method for comparing the performance of different groups on the items in a test (College Entrance Examination
• Board Research and Development Rep. 64-5 No. 9; ETS Research Bulletin 64-61). Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service. Cleary, T. A. (1968). Test bias: prediction of grades of Negro and white students in integrated colleges. Journal of Educational Measurement, 5, 115-124.
• Cleary, T. A., & Hilton, T. L. (1968). An investigation of item bias. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 28, 61—75.
• Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to Classical Modern Test Theory.
• Rinehard and Winston Inc. United States. Embi‘etson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item Reponse Theory for Psychologists.
• Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Mahway, New Jersey. Fienberg, S. E. (1980). The analysis of cross—classiŞed categorical data.
• Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Gier], M. J., Bisanz, J., Bisanz, G., Boughton, K.A., & Khaliq, S. N. (2003)
• Identifying content and cognitive skills that produce gender differences in mathematics: a demonstration of the multidimensionality—based DIF analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40, 281-306. Hambleton, K. R., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item Response Theory
• Principles and Application. Ni j hoff Publishing. Hollan, P. W. (1985). On the study of differential item performance without lRT.
• Proceesings of the 27'h Annual Conference of the Military Testing Association (Vol. I,‘ pp.282—287). San Diego CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center. Holand P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. 1. Braun (Eds), Test validity (pp.129-145). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
• Mantel, N., & Haensze], W. (1959). Statistical aspect ofthe analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal ofthe National Cancer Institude, , 719-748. Mellenbergh, 1982
• Messick, S. (1989). Validity. Linn, Robert L. (ED). Educational Measurement
• (3rd ed.). The American council on education / Macmillan series on higher education. (pp. 13-103).