A Comparison of Four Methods for Detecting Differential Item Functioning in Ordered Response Items
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Item bias is a major threat to measurement validity. Methods for detecting differential item functioning (DIF) are now commonly used to identify potentially biased items. DIF detection methods for dichotomous items are well developed, but those for ordinal items are less well developed. In this article, the authors compare four methods for detecting DIF in ordinal items: the Mantel, generalized Mantel-Haenszel (GMH), logistic discriminant function analysis (LDFA), and unconstrained cumulative logits ordinal logistic regression (UCLOLR). Factors varied include type of DIF, group ability differences, studied item discrimination, skewness in ability distributions, and sample size ratio. All procedures had good Type I error control as well as high power for detecting uniform DIF. However, the Mantel could not detect nonuniform DIF, and the LDFA also performed poorly in detecting nonuniform DIF, particularly when item discrimination was high. The UCLOLR and GMH performed extremely well under conditions simulated in this study. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
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 | 0.169 | 0.370 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".