Analysis of Socio-Economic Status and Gender Related Differential Item Functioning Using Item Response Theory Approach

Main Article Content

Stella Eteng-Uket


The study investigated detecting differential item functioning using item response theory in West African Senior School Certificate English language test in south-south Nigeria. 2 research questions were formulated to guide the study. Using descriptive research survey design for the study, study population was 117845 Senior Secondary 3 students in Edo, Delta, Rivers and Bayelsa state. A sample of 1309 (604 males, 705 females) drawn through multi stage sampling technique was used for the study. Two valid instruments titled: Socio-economic status questionnaire (SSQ) and WASSCE/SSCE English language objective test (ELOT) were used to collect data for the study. The reliability indices of the instruments were estimated using the Cronbach Alpha method of internal consistency and Richard Kuderson 20 with coefficient values of .84 for the English Language objective test and .71 for the socio-economic status questionnaire respectively. Chi-square and Lord Wald test statistics statistical technique employed by Item Response Theory for Patient Reported Outcome (IRTPRO) was the technique used in data analysis which provided answers to the research questions at.05 level of significance. On analysis, the result revealed that 13 items functioned differently significant between the male and female group and significantly 23 items differentially functioned between High and low socio-economic status group. Thus, this shows 18% DIF based on gender and 32% based on socio-economic status indicating large DIF and items that are potentially biased. Based on the findings, recommendation were made and one among others was that Item Response theory should be used as DIF detection method by large scale public examination and test developers.

Item response theory, differential item functioning, gender, socio-economic statu, English language, examination

Article Details

How to Cite
Eteng-Uket, S. (2021). Analysis of Socio-Economic Status and Gender Related Differential Item Functioning Using Item Response Theory Approach. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 16(2), 42-55.
Original Research Article


Enamiroro EP. Education poverty and development in nigeria: The way the 21st century. Journal of Social Science. 2007;14(1):19-24.

Brown A. Measurement invariance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012.

Lee SH. Lord Wald test for detecting DIF in multidimensional IRT model; A comparism of two approaches. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. State School University of New Jersey. New Jersey; 2015.

Battuaz M. On Wald’s test on differential item functioning detection method; 2017. Retrieved on 6/4/2017

Wiberg M. Measuring and detecting differential item functioning in criterion referenced licensed test: A theoretical comparison of methods. Educational Measurement. 2007;60:1-33.

Siebert C. Differential item functioning identification strategy for items with dichotomous responses. Using the item information cure: A weighted Area Method (WAM). Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Florida State University; 2013. Retrieved: on 11/08/2016 Available:

Karami H, Nodoushan MA. Differential item functioning dif: Current problems and future directions. International Journal ofLanguage Studies. 2011;5(3):133- 142.

Perrone M. Differential item function item bias: Critical considerations in test fairness. Teachers college, Columbia University Working Papers in FESOL & Applied Linguistics. 2006;16(2):1-3.

McNamara T, Roever C. Language testing: Thesocial dimension. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell; 2006.

Kim SH, Cohen AS. A comparison of Lord’s chi-square, Raju’s area measures, and the likelihood ratio test in detection of differential item functioning. Applied Measurement in Education.1995;8:291–312.

Oshima TC, Morris SB. An NCME instructional module on Raju’s differential functioning of items and tests (DFIT). Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2008;27:43-50.

Woods CM, Cai L, Wang M. The Langer-improved Wald test for DIF testing with multiple groups: Evaluation and comparison to two-group IRT. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2013;73: 532-547.

Ertuby C, Russell RJH. Dealing with compatibility problems of cross cultural data. Paper Presented at the International Congress of Psychology. Montreal; 1996.

Hambleton R, Rodgers J. Item bias review: Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation. 1995;4(6). Retrived: on 10/11/2016 Available:

Raju NS. An Empirical assessment of the mantel-haenszel statistic for studying differential item performance. Applied Measurement in Education. 1989;12(1): 1-13.

Hidalgo MH, Lopez Pina JA. Differential item functioning detecting and effect size: A comparison between logistic regression and mantel-Haenszel procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2004;64:903-915.

Parshall CG, Miller TR. Exact versus asymptotic mantel-Haenszeldif statistics: A comparison of performance under small sample conditions. Journal of Educational Measurement. 1995;32(3);302-316.

Federal Republic of Nigeria National Policy on Education (1st Ed). Lagos: NERDC Press; 2004.

Akran M, Ghani M. The relationship of socioeconomic status with language learning motivation. International Journal of Englishand Education. 2013;2(2):406-413.

Ariani MG, Ghafournia N. The relationship between socio-economic status and beliefs about language learning: A study of irania post graduate EAP students. English Language Teaching. 2015;8(9):17-25.

Uwhekadom EE. Influence of language manipulation on differential item functioning in chemistry multiple choice test items. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of Port Harcourt; 2014.

Madu BC. Analysis of gender related differential item functioning in mathematics multiple choice items administered by West Africa examination council (WAEC). Journal of Educational and Practice. 2012;3(8):71-78.

Reuben E, Akorede S. Differential item functioning technique for detection of item bias in Economic among secondary school students in Abuja metropolis. Nigerian Journal of Educational Research and Evaluation. 2016;15(1):112-125.

Engelthard G, Wind SA, Kobrin JL, Chajewski M. Differential item and person functioning in large –scale writing assessments within the context of the SAT. College Board Research Report no. New York: The college Board; 2013.

Ogbebor U, Onuka A. Differential item functioning method as an item bias indicator. International Research Journal. 2013;4(4):367-373

Umoinyang. Item bias in mathematics achievement test. Unpublished M.ed. thesis, University of Calabar; Calabar; 1991.

Abiam PO. An analysis of differential item functioning of 1992. first school leaving certificate examination (FSLSE) in Cross River State. In Gani, A Badmus & Peter, I. Odor (eds) challenges of managing Educational Assessment in Nigeria, JAMB, NABTE, NBEM; 1996.

Nworgo BG, Odili JN. Analysis of dIF in waec, ssce biology multiple choice test; 2005. Retrieved: on 10/09/2016 Available:http//ww.aeafrica.orgPAPERS/effectof20%wlagmanipulation/

Cai L, Du Toit SHC,Thissen D. IRTPRO.2.1 [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International; 2011.

Odili JN. Effect of language manipulation on differential item functioning of test item in biology in a multinational setting. Journal of Education Assessment in Africa. 2010;4: 264-286.

Metibemu MA. Comparing Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory in the Development, Scoring and Equating of Secondary School Physics test in Ondo state Nigeria. Ph.D. International Centre for Educatioal Evaluation, Thesis University of Ibadan; 2016.

Igbokwe E. Development of differential item functioning for placement of students into federal unity schools in Nigeria. Ph.D. International Centre for Educatioal Evaluation, Thesis University of Ibadan; 2004.