Analyzing Fairness Among Linguistic Minority Populations Using a Latent Class Differential Item Functioning Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differential item functioning (DIF) analyses have been used as the primary method in large-scale assessments to examine fairness for subgroups. Currently, DIF analyses are conducted utilizing manifest methods using observed characteristics (gender and race/ethnicity) for grouping examinees. Homogeneity of item responses is assumed denoting that all examinees respond to test items using a similar approach. This assumption may not hold with all groups. In this study, we demonstrate the first application of the latent class (LC) approach to investigate DIF and its sources with heterogeneous (linguistic minority groups). We found at least three LCs within each linguistic group, suggesting the need to empirically evaluate this assumption in DIF analysis. We obtained larger proportions of DIF items with larger effect sizes when LCs within language groups versus the overall (majority/minority) language groups were examined. The illustrated approach could be used to improve the ways in which DIF analyses are typically conducted to enhance DIF detection accuracy and score-based inferences when analyzing DIF with heterogeneous populations.
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 | 0.037 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".