MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1497291236 · doi:10.22237/jmasm/1193890860

Operating Characteristics Of The DIF MIMIC Approach Using Jöreskog’s Covariance Matrix With ML And WLS Estimation For Short Scales

2007· article· en· W1497291236 on OpenAlexaff
Michaela N. Gelin, Bruno D. Zumbo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Statistical Modeling Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLISRELMathematicsLatent variableStatisticsStructural equation modelingCovarianceCovariance matrixType I and type II errorsLatent variable modelDifferential item functioningItem response theoryVariable (mathematics)EconometricsOrdinal dataPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Type I error rate of a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach for investigating differential item functioning (DIF) in short scales was studied. Muthén’s SEM model for DIF was examined using a covariance matrix (Jöreskog, 2002). It is conditioned on the latent variable, while testing the effect of the grouping variable over-and-above the underlying latent variable. Thus, it is a multiple-indicators, multiple-causes (MIMIC) DIF model. Type I error rates were determined using data reflective of short scales with ordinal item response formats typically found in the social and behavioral sciences. Results indicate Type I error rates for the DIF MIMIC model, as implemented in LISREL, are inflated for both estimation methods for the design conditions examined.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.098
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.372
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0980.372
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Modern Applied Statistical MethodsSame topicAdvanced Statistical Modeling TechniquesFrench-language works237,207