– رضایی، عباسعلی و شعبانی، عنایت‌الله (1389). تحلیل کارکرد افتراقی جنسیتی آزمون سنجش توانش عمومی زبان دانشگاه تهران. مجلۀ پژوهش‌های زبان خارجی، شمارۀ 56.
– گرامی‌پور، مسعود و فلسفی‌نژاد، محمدرضا (1392). روش‌های آماری بررسی کنش افتراقیسؤال(DIF) در آزمون‌های سرنوشت‌ساز. تهران: انتشارات جهاد دانشگاهی واحد تربیت معلم.
– Agresti, A. (2007). an introduction to categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley Interscience.
– Byrne, B. M. & Stewart, S. M. (2006). The MACS approach to testing for multigroup invariance of a second-order structure: A walk through the process. Structural Equation Modeling, 13: 287-321.
– Camilli, G. & Congdon, P. (1999). Application of a method of estimating DIF for polytomous test items. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 24: 323–341.
– Camilli, G. & Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
– Clauser, B. & Mazor, K. (1998). Using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning test items. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(1): 31–44.
– Conoley, C. A. (2003). Differential item functioning in the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Third Edition: Partial correlation versus Expert judgment. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, TX
– Drasgow, F. (1984). Scrutinizing psychological tests: Measurement equivalence and equivalent relations with external variables are central issues. Psychological Bulletin, 95: 135-135.
– Elder, C.; Mc Namara, T. & Congdon, P. (2003). Rasch techniques for detecting bias in performance tests: An example comparing the performance of native and non-native speakers on a test of academic English. Journal of Applied Measurement, 4:181–197.
– Elosua, P. & Wells, C. S. (2013). Detecting DIF in Polytomous Items Using MACS, IRT and Ordinal Logistic Regression. Psicológica, 34: 327-342.
– Embretson, S. E. & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
– Englehard, G.; Hansche, L. & Rutledge, K. E. (1990). Accuracy of bias review judges in identifying differential item functioning on teacher certification tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 3: 347–360.
– Flowers, C. P.; Oshima, T. C. & Raju, N. S. (1999). A description and demonstration of the polytomous-DFIT framework. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23: 309–326.
– Han, Kyung T. & Hambleton, Ronald K. (2007). User’s Manual for WinGen: Windows Software that Generates IRT Model Parameters and Item Responses. Center for Educational Assessment Research. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, Center for Educational Assessment.
– Harwell, M.; Stone, C. A.; Hsu, T. C & Kirisci, L. (1996). Monte Carlo studies in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20: 101-125.
– Herrera A. N. (2005). Sample size effect and rate of sample sizes to detect differential item functioning, Doctoral thesis, university of Barcelona, Barcelona (Spain).
– Hidalgo, M. D. & López-Pina, J. P. (2004). Differential item functioning detection and effect size: A comparison between logistic regression and Mantel Haenszel procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64: 903–915.
– Jodoin, M. G. & Gierl, M. J. (2001). Evaluating Type I error and power rates using an effect size measure with the logistic regression procedure for DIF detection. Applied Measurement in Education, 14: 329–349.
– Lord, F. M. & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
– Millsap, R. E (2011). Statistical Approaches to Measurement Invariance. New York: NY, Routledge
– Narayanan, P. & Swaminathan, H. (1996). Identification of items that show nonuniform DIF. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20: 257-274.
– Parshall, C. G. & Miller, T. R. (1995). Exact versus asymptotic Mantel-Haenszel DIF statistics. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32 (3): 302–316.
– Penfield, R. D. & Algina, J. (2003). Applying the Liu–Agresti estimator of the cumulative common odds ratio to DIF detection in polytomous items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40: 353–370.
– Raju, N. S.; Laffitte, L. J. & Byrne, B. M. (2002). Measurement equivalence: A comparison of methods based on Confirmatory Factor Analysis and item response theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 517–529.
– Reise, S. P.; Widaman, K. F. & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory Factor Analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114: 552-566.
– Rogers, H. J. & Swaminathan, H. (1993). A comparison of the logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement. 17: 105–116.
– Santana, A. C. (2009). Effect of the ratio of sample sizes to detect differential items dunctioning through logistic regression procedure, Master thesis, National University of Colombia, Bogotá (Colombia).
– Shealy, R. T.; Stout, W. F. (1993). A model based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from group ability differences and detects test bias/DTF as well as item bias/DIF. Psychometrika, 58: 197–239.
– Spence, I. (1993). Monte Carlo simulation studies. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7: 405-425
– Swaminathan, H. & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27: 361– 370.
– 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: 313–350.
– Vandenberg, R. J. (2002). Toward a further understanding of and improvement in measurement invariance methods and procedures. Organizational Research Methods, 5: 139–158.
– Van der Linden, W. J. & Hambleton, R. K. (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.
– Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A Handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (ordinal) item scores. Ottawa, ON: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.
– Zwick, R.; Thayer, D. T. & Lewis, C. (1999). An empirical Bayes approach to Mantel–Haenszel DIF analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36: 1–28.
)