Detecting DIF in polytomous items: An empirical comparison of the ordinal logistic regression, logistic discriminant function analysis, Mantel, and Generalized Mantel-Haenszel procedures.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study had four main objectives and two minor objectives: (1) To compare the Type I Error rates of four analytic techniques: the Mantel, Generalized Mantel-Haenszel (GMH), Logistic Discriminant Function Analysis (LDFA), and Ordinal Logistic Regression (OLR) procedures when there was no DIF in items. It was hypothesized that the procedures would differ little in their Type I Error rates, but that the OLR would have relatively the lowest Type I Error rates. (2) To compare the power of the Mantel, GMH, LDFA, and OLR for detecting uniform and nonuniform DIF in polytomous items. It was hypothesized that the Mantel would have the highest power for uniform DIF, but that it would not be useful for detecting nonuniform DIF. The GMH, OLR and LDFA were expected to display high power for nonuniform DIF. (3) To learn whether discrimination of the studied item, reference and focal group ability difference, sample size ratio between reference and focal group, and skewness would affect the performance of the four DIF detection procedures. It was hypothesized that differences in group ability distributions would result in increased Type I Error when item discrimination was high, and that differences in sample size ratio would lower power. (4) To determine whether adding a measure of effect size would reduce Type I Error. It was hypothesized that including effect size in the decision rule would reduce Type I Error for all procedures, and that it would also result in slightly lower power. (5) To compare Type I Error of the LDFA and OLR in classifying DIF as uniform when it was nonuniform and (6) To compare the Type I Error of the LDFA and OLR in classifying DIF as nonuniform when it was uniform. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".