바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Psychology: General

  • KOREAN
  • P-ISSN1229-067X
  • E-ISSN2734-1127
  • KCI

ISSN : 1229-067X

Article Contents

Prev
e-Submission

Vol.28 No.1

Citation Share

Gender Differences on Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire(MPQ): A study of Differential Item Functioning(DIF) with Mantel-Haenszel Statistic

Korean Journal of Psychology: General / Korean Journal of Psychology: General, (P)1229-067X; (E)2734-1127
2009, v.28 no.1, pp.263-281
Jung lee (Chungnam University)
Soon Mook Lee (Sungkyunkwan University)
Jung, l. , & Soon, M. L. (2009). Gender Differences on Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire(MPQ): A study of Differential Item Functioning(DIF) with Mantel-Haenszel Statistic. Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 28(1), 263-281.

Abstract

In the present study, we explored whether there are items that function differently across women and men on Tellegen’s Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire(MPQ; Tellegen, 1982; Tellegen & Waller, In Press) by using Mantel-Haenszel(MH) statistic. For the purpose of the study, we applied MHITER program to a sample of responses to the 300-item MPQ personality test. The subjects were 300 individuals(137 men and 163 women, with a mean age of 39.72). The findings of the present study are as following. Firstly, some of the MPQ scales showed significant mean differences across gender; these were Social Potency, Social Closeness, Stress Reaction, Aggression, Harm Avoidance, and Absorption scales. Secondly, six MPQ scales showed more than three items functioning differently. Among others, the Traditionalism scale had the most DIF items, which is followed by Stress Reaction, Aggression, Social Potency, Achievement, and Harm Avoidance. In conclusion, there was a non-negligible number of DIF items across gender in MPQ scales, implying that there may be many DIF items in other personality tests that are currently used. The fact that men and women differently responded to some items reflect a socio-cultural impact in their perspectives on the personality items/tests.

keywords
차별적 문항기능, 성격 검사, 성차, 만텔-헨젤(Mantel-Haenszel), 텔레겐 성격검사, DIF, personality test, gender difference, Mantel-Haenszel, MPQ, DIF, personality test, gender difference, Mantel-Haenszel, MPQ

Reference

1.

Ackerman, T. A., Gierl, M. J., & Walker, C. (2003). Using multidimensional item response theory to evaluate educational and psychological tests. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22, 37-53.

2.

Becker, G. (2006). NEO-FFI scores in college men and women: A view from McDonald's unified treatment of test theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 911-941.

3.

Bouchard, T. J. Jr. (1994). Genes, environment, and personality, Science, 264(5166), 1700-1.

4.

Buss, D. (1991). Evolutionary personality psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 459-491.

5.

Cole, N. S. (1993). History and development of DIF. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential Item Functioning (pp. 25-29). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

6.

Francis, L. J. (1993). The dual nature of the Eysenckian neuroticism scales: a question of sex differences? Personality and Individual Differences, 15(1), 43-59.

7.

Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

8.

Holland, P. W. & Thayer, D. T. (1986). Differential item performance and Mantel- Haenszel procedure. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association(67th, San Francisco, CA. April 16-20, 1986).

9.

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: Erlbaum.

10.

Horney, K. (1967). The distrust between the sexes. In H. Kelman (Ed.) Feminine psychology (pp.107-118). New York: Norton. (Original work published 1930).

11.

Houtman, I. (1990). Personal coping resources and sex differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 53-63.

12.

Huang, C. D., Church, A. T., & Katigbak, M. S. (1997). Identifying cultural differences in items and traits: differential item functioning in the NEO personality inventory. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 28(2), 192-218.

13.

Kwak, N. H. (1997). MHITER version 1.0. University of Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN.

14.

Lykken, D. T., Bouchard, T. J. Jr., McGue, M., & Tellegen, A. (2000). The Minnesota Twin Family Registry: some initial findings. Acta Geneticae Medicae et Gemellologicae, 39, 35-70.

15.

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.

16.

Marascuilo, L. A. & Slaughter, R. E. (1981). Statistical procedures for identifying possible sources of item bias based on statistics. Journal of Educational measurement, 18, 229-248.

17.

Madden, M. E., Allee, M. & Smith, K. (1989). Jealousy, gender, sex roles, and dependency. Paper presented at the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, March, 1989.

18.

McBroom, W. H. (1986). Changes in role orientations of women: A study of sex role traditionalism over a five-year period. Journal of Family Issues, 7, 149-159.

19.

Mellenberg, G. J. (1982). Contingency table models for assessing item bias. Journal of Educational Statistics, 7, 105-118.

20.

Rogers, H. J., & Swaminathan, H. (1993). A comparison of logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17(2), 105-116.

21.

Scheuneman, J. D., & Bleistein, C. A. (1989). A consumer's guide to statistics for identifying differential item functioning. Applied Measurement in Education, 2(3), 255-275.

22.

Scheuneman, J. D. (1979). A method of assessing bias in test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 16(3), 143-152.

23.

Schnohr, C. W., Kreiner, S., Due, E. P., Currie, C., Boyee, W., & Diderichsen, F. (2008). Differential Item Functioning of a family affluence scale: validation study on data from HBSCC 2001/02. Social Indicators Research, 89, 79-95.

24.

Smith, L. L. (2002). On the usefulness of item bias analysis to personality psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 754-763.

25.

Smith, L. L., & Reise, S. P. (1998). Gender differences on negative affectivity: an IRT study of differential item functioning on the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire Stress Reaction scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1350-1362.

26.

Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief manual of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota.

27.

Tellegen, A. (1985). Structure of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report. In A. H. Tuma and J. D. Maser(eds.) Anxiety and the Anxiety Disorders. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA, pp.681-706.

28.

Tellegen, A., Lykken, D. T., Bouchard, T. J. Jr., Wilcox, K., Segal, N. L., & Rich, S. (1988). Personality similarity in twins reared apart and together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1031-1039.

29.

Tellegen, A. & Waller, N. G. (2008). Exploring personality through test construction: development of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske(eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment, Vol 2. (pp.261-292). Sage Publications Ltd.

30.

Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1988). Use of item response theory in the study of group differences in trace lines. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun(Eds.), Test validity(pp.147-169). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

31.

Wilson, D., Wood, R., & Gibbons, R. (1991). TESTFACT: Test scoring, item statistics, and item factor analysis. Chicago: Scientific Software International.

32.

Zwick, R., Thayer, D. T., & Wingersky, M. (1994). A simulation study of methods for assessing differential item functioning in computerized adaptive tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 121-140.

Korean Journal of Psychology: General

e-Submission OA Policy