MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135248568 · doi:10.1080/15305058.2011.602810

A Generalized Logistic Regression Procedure to Detect Differential Item Functioning Among Multiple Groups

2011· article· en· W2135248568 on OpenAlexaff
David Magis, Gilles Raîche, Sébastien Béland, Paul Gérard

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Testing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDifferential item functioningLogistic regressionCompleteness (order theory)StatisticsItem response theoryMathematicsSet (abstract data type)Extension (predicate logic)Differential (mechanical device)Flexibility (engineering)RegressionPsychologyPsychometricsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an extension of the logistic regression procedure to identify dichotomous differential item functioning (DIF) in the presence of more than two groups of respondents. Starting from the usual framework of a single focal group, we propose a general approach to estimate the item response functions in each group and to test for the presence of uniform DIF, nonuniform DIF, or both. This generalized procedure is compared to other existing DIF methods for multiple groups with a real data set on language skill assessment. Emphasis is put on the flexibility, completeness, and computational easiness of the generalized method.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.548
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.100 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations46
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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