A Propensity Score Method for Investigating Differential Item Functioning in Performance Assessment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study introduces a novel differential item functioning (DIF) method based on propensity score matching that tackles two challenges in analyzing performance assessment data, that is, continuous task scores and lack of a reliable internal variable as a proxy for ability or aptitude. The proposed DIF method consists of two main stages. First, propensity score matching is used to eliminate preexisting group differences before the test, ideally creating equivalent groups as in a randomized experimental study. Then, linear mixed effects models are adopted to perform DIF analysis based on the matched data set. We demonstrate this propensity DIF method using a high-stakes functional English language proficiency test. DIF due to education was investigated in the writing component, which consists of two continuously scored performance-based tasks. Although the proposed method is demonstrated in the context of language testing, it can be applied to other types of performance assessments.
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it