MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983043858 · doi:10.1080/15305058.2001.9669474

Illustrating the Use of Nonparametric Regression to Assess Differential Item and Bundle Functioning Among Multiple Groups

2001· article· en· W1983043858 on OpenAlexaff
Mark J. Gierl, Daniel M. Bolt

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Testing · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNonparametric statisticsDifferential item functioningBundleNonparametric regressionDifferential (mechanical device)StatisticsRegression analysisRegressionSmoothingPsychologyMathematicsEconometricsItem response theoryPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this article is to illustrate the use of nonparametric regression with kernel smoothing (Ramsay, 1991), as implemented with the computer program TESTGRAF (Ramsay, 2000), to investigate differential item or bundle functioning among multiple groups. Nonparametric regression is a flexible procedure used to estimate and display the relation between the probability that examinees with a given proficiency level will choose different options to multiple-choice items. The unit of analysis can be an item or a bundle of items. It can also be used to detect differential performance across two or more groups of examinees matched on overall proficiency. We present three examples to illustrate how nonparametric regression can be applied to multilingual, multicultural data to study group differences.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.677
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations15
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of TestingSame topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207