Multidimensional Extension of Multiple Indicators Multiple Causes Models to Detect DIF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of studies have found multiple indicators multiple causes (MIMIC) models to be an effective tool in detecting uniform differential item functioning (DIF) for individual items and item bundles. A recently developed MIMIC-interaction model is capable of detecting both uniform and nonuniform DIF in the unidimensional item response theory (IRT) framework. The goal of the current study is to extend the MIMIC-interaction model for detecting DIF in the context of multidimensional IRT modelling and examine the performance of the multidimensional MIMIC-interaction model under various simulation conditions with respect to Type I error and power rates. Simulation conditions include DIF pattern and magnitude, test length, correlation between latent traits, sample size, and latent mean differences between focal and reference groups. The results of this study indicate that power rates of the multidimensional MIMIC-interaction model under uniform DIF conditions were higher than those of nonuniform DIF conditions. When anchor item length and sample size increased, power for detecting DIF increased. Also, the equal latent mean condition tended to produce higher power rates than the different mean condition. Although the multidimensional MIMIC-interaction model was found to be a reasonably useful tool for identifying uniform DIF, the performance of the model in detecting nonuniform DIF appeared to be questionable.
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 | 0.082 | 0.193 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".