MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2745969301 · doi:10.1007/s11136-017-1680-8

The use of latent variable mixture models to identify invariant items in test construction

2017· article· en· W2745969301 on OpenAlexafffund
Richard Sawatzky, Lara B. Russell, Tolulope T. Sajobi, Lisa M. Lix, Jacek A. Kopec, Bruno D. Zumbo

Bibliographic record

VenueQuality of Life Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of CalgaryResearch CanadaUniversity of ManitobaProvidence Health CareTrinity Western UniversityCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
KeywordsDifferential item functioningBivariate analysisItem response theoryLatent class modelLatent variablePsychologyLogistic regressionStatisticsLatent variable modelInvariant (physics)EconometricsMeasurement invarianceContext (archaeology)Rasch modelPromPopulationMathematicsPsychometricsStructural equation modelingConfirmatory factor analysisMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are frequently used in heterogeneous patient populations. PROM scores may lead to biased inferences when sources of heterogeneity (e.g., gender, ethnicity, and social factors) are ignored. Latent variable mixture models (LVMMs) can be used to examine measurement invariance (MI) when sources of heterogeneity in the population are not known a priori. The goal of this article is to discuss the use of LVMMs to identify invariant items within the context of test construction. METHODS: The Draper-Lindely-de Finetti (DLD) framework for the measurement of latent variables provides a theoretical context for the use of LVMMs to identify the most invariant items in test construction. In an expository analysis using 39 items measuring daily activities, LVMMs were conducted to compare 1- and 2-class item response theory models (IRT). If the 2-class model had better fit, item-level logistic regression differential item functioning (DIF) analyses were conducted to identify items that were not invariant. These items were removed and LVMMs and DIF testing repeated until all remaining items showed MI. RESULTS: The 39 items had an essentially unidimensional measurement structure. However, a 1-class IRT model resulted in many statistically significant bivariate residuals, indicating suboptimal fit due to remaining local dependence. A 2-class LVMM had better fit. Through subsequent rounds of LVMMs and DIF testing, nine items were identified as being most invariant. CONCLUSIONS: The DLD framework and the use of LVMMs have significant potential for advancing theoretical developments and research on item selection and the development of PROMs for 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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinglow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.067
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.239
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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0670.239
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.937
GPT teacher head0.633
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Methods

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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuality of Life ResearchSame topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207