MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004501768 · doi:10.1177/0013164402239317

Differential Item Functioning Results May Change Depending On How An Item Is Scored: An Illustration With The Center For Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale

2003· article· en· W2004501768 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

VenueEducational and Psychological Measurement · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDifferential item functioningPsychologyItem response theoryLogistic regressionStatisticsPsychometricsOrdered logitScale (ratio)Clinical psychologyCenter for Epidemiologic Studies Depression ScalePersistence (discontinuity)Depressive symptomsMathematicsCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study investigated potentially biased scale items on the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D). The 20-item CES-D was scored using two binary methods (presence and persistence) and one ordinal method. Gender differential item functioning (DIF) was explored using Zumbo’s OLR method with corresponding logistic regression effect size estimator with all three scoring methods. Gender DIF was found with the CES-D item “crying” for the ordinal and presence methods of scoring. The persistence scoring method identified two DIF items (effort and hopeful); however, this scoring method appears to be of limited use due to low variability on some items. Overall, the results indicate that the scoring method has an effect on DIF; thus, DIF is a property of the item, scoring method, and purpose of the instrument.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.883
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.349 · 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