Testing Features of Graphical DIF: Application of a Regression Correction to Three Nonparametric Statistical Tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inspection of differential item functioning (DIF) in translated test items can be informed by graphical comparisons of item response functions (IRFs) across translated forms. Due to the many forms of DIF that can emerge in such analyses, it is important to develop statistical tests that can confirm various characteristics of DIF when present. Traditional nonparametric tests of DIF (Mantel‐Haenszel, SIBTEST) are not designed to test for the presence of nonuniform or local DIF, while common probability difference (P‐DIF) tests (e.g., SIBTEST) do not optimize power in testing for uniform DIF, and thus may be less useful in the context of graphical DIF analyses. In this article, modifications of three alternative nonparametric statistical tests for DIF, Fisher's χ 2 test, Cochran's Z test, and Goodman's U test ( Marascuilo & Slaughter, 1981 ), are investigated for these purposes. A simulation study demonstrates the effectiveness of a regression correction procedure in improving the statistical performance of the tests when using an internal test score as the matching criterion. Simulation power and real data analyses demonstrate the unique information provided by these alternative methods compared to SIBTEST and Mantel‐Haenszel in confirming various forms of DIF in translated tests.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.065 | 0.433 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".