The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Methodology Review: Statistical Approaches for Assessing Measurement Bias
Abstract
Statistical methods developed over the last decade for detecting measurement bias in psycho logical and educational tests are reviewed. Earlier methods for assessing measurement bias generally have been replaced by more sophisticated statistical techniques, such as the Mantel-Haenszel procedure, the standardization approach, logistic regression models, and item response theory approaches. The review employs a conceptual framework that distin guishes methods of detecting measurement bias based on either observed or unobserved conditional invariance models. Although progress has been made in the development of statistical methods for detecting measurement bias, issues related to the choice of matching variable, the nonuniform nature of measurement bias, the suitability of cur rent approaches for new and emerging perform ance assessment methods, and insights into the causes of measurement bias remain elusive. Clearly, psychometric solutions to the problems of measurement bias will further understanding of the more central issue of construct validity. The con tinuing development of statistical methods for detecting and understanding the causes of mea surement bias will continue to be an important scientific challenge.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Aspects of the Analysis of Data From Retrospective Studies of Disease
(1959) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/22.4.719 · Cited by 14,689
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.105.3.456 · Cited by 4,115
A Rasch model for partial credit scoring
Masters, G. N. (1982) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02296272 · Cited by 3,782
The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables
Simpson, E. H. (1951) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1951.tb00088.x · Cited by 2,301 · cited 6×
“of the linking. The available research does not clearly support the superiority of either type of method in all situations. Stocking & Lord (1983) found that their characteristic curve method was more accurate than the moment method developed by Linn et al.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSimultaneous Factor Analysis in Several Populations
Jöreskog, K. G. (1971) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02291366 · Cited by 2,051
Item bias and item response theory
Mellenbergh, G. J. (1989) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/0883-0355(89)90002-5 · Cited by 553
Multiple Group IRT Modeling: Applications to Item Bias Analysis
Muthén, B., & Lehman, J. (1985) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.3102/10769986010002133 · Cited by 97
Cited by
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/109442810031002 · Cited by 7,997
Chen, F. F. (2008) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0013193 · Cited by 962
Measurement invariance: Review of practice and implications
Schmitt, N., & Kuljanin, G. (2008) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.03.003 · Cited by 759
Methodology Review: Evaluating Person Fit
Meijer, R. R., & Sijtsma, K. (2001) · Applied Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/01466210122031957 · Cited by 417
Evaluating the Impact of Partial Factorial Invariance on Selection in Two Populations
Millsap, R. E., & Kwok, O.-M. (2004) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.9.1.93 · Cited by 414
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Millsap, R. E., & Everson, H. T.
- Venue
- Applied Psychological Measurement
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1993-12
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 297-334
- ISSN
- 0146-6216 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3497
- OpenAlex
- W2171273909
- Cited by
- 491
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 8.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Methodology Review: Statistical Approaches for Assessing Measurement Bias. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/014662169301700401
- The paper
- Millsap, R. E., & Everson, H. T. (1993). Methodology Review: Statistical Approaches for Assessing Measurement Bias. Applied Psychological Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169301700401
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.