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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.343
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.343
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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