Loading…
A comparison of discriminant logistic regression and Item Response Theory Likelihood-Ratio Tests for Differential Item Functioning (IRTLRDIF) in polytomous short tests
Short scales are typically used in the social, behavioural and health sciences. This is relevant since test length can influence whether items showing DIF are correctly flagged. This paper compares the relative effectiveness of discriminant logistic regression (DLR) and IRTLRDIF for detecting DIF in...
Saved in:
Published in: | Psicothema 2016, Vol.28 (1), p.83-88 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | 88 |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 83 |
container_title | Psicothema |
container_volume | 28 |
creator | Hidalgo, María D López-Martínez, María D Gómez-Benito, Juana Guilera, Georgina |
description | Short scales are typically used in the social, behavioural and health sciences. This is relevant since test length can influence whether items showing DIF are correctly flagged. This paper compares the relative effectiveness of discriminant logistic regression (DLR) and IRTLRDIF for detecting DIF in polytomous short tests.
A simulation study was designed. Test length, sample size, DIF amount and item response categories number were manipulated. Type I error and power were evaluated.
IRTLRDIF and DLR yielded Type I error rates close to nominal level in no-DIF conditions. Under DIF conditions, Type I error rates were affected by test length DIF amount, degree of test contamination, sample size and number of item response categories. DLR showed a higher Type I error rate than did IRTLRDIF. Power rates were affected by DIF amount and sample size, but not by test length. DLR achieved higher power rates than did IRTLRDIF in very short tests, although the high Type I error rate involved means that this result cannot be taken into account.
Test length had an important impact on the Type I error rate. IRTLRDIF and DLR showed a low power rate in short tests and with small sample sizes. |
doi_str_mv | 10.7334/psicothema2015.142 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1761465834</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2778322899</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c282t-b3bf5ebab378de810d878e55265299a3e1a5a5dd1ac5a43e09a80606bb16ce103</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkc1u1DAUhS0EokPhBVggS2zKIsX_cZZVy9CRRkIaDRK7yHFuZlwSO9jOYp6I18TVlEqwupvvnHt0DkLvKbmuORef5-RsyEeYDCNUXlPBXqAV1VpVVIgfL9GKMCqqpqHyAr1J6YEQqXjNXqMLpjQjgjUr9PsG2zDNJroUPA4D7l2y0U3OG5_xGA4uZWdxhEOElFxhjO_xJsOEd5Dm4BPg_RFCPOGt-wmjO4bQVzuTXcB7SDnhIUR854YBIvjszHgWrxdvC-OdP-CrzW6_3d1t1p-w83gO4ymHKSwJp2OIGedHm7fo1WDGBO-e7iX6vv6yv72vtt--bm5vtpVlmuWq490goTMdr3UPmpJe1xqkZEqypjEcqJFG9j01VhrBgTRGE0VU11FlgRJ-ia7OvnMMv5byuZ1KITCOxkOJ1NJaUaGk5qKgH_9DH8ISfUnXsrrWnDHdNIViZ8rGkFKEoZ1LvSaeWkraxxnbf2dsy4xF9OHJeukm6J8lf3fjfwDaOp6B</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2778322899</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of discriminant logistic regression and Item Response Theory Likelihood-Ratio Tests for Differential Item Functioning (IRTLRDIF) in polytomous short tests</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><creator>Hidalgo, María D ; López-Martínez, María D ; Gómez-Benito, Juana ; Guilera, Georgina</creator><creatorcontrib>Hidalgo, María D ; López-Martínez, María D ; Gómez-Benito, Juana ; Guilera, Georgina</creatorcontrib><description>Short scales are typically used in the social, behavioural and health sciences. This is relevant since test length can influence whether items showing DIF are correctly flagged. This paper compares the relative effectiveness of discriminant logistic regression (DLR) and IRTLRDIF for detecting DIF in polytomous short tests.
A simulation study was designed. Test length, sample size, DIF amount and item response categories number were manipulated. Type I error and power were evaluated.
IRTLRDIF and DLR yielded Type I error rates close to nominal level in no-DIF conditions. Under DIF conditions, Type I error rates were affected by test length DIF amount, degree of test contamination, sample size and number of item response categories. DLR showed a higher Type I error rate than did IRTLRDIF. Power rates were affected by DIF amount and sample size, but not by test length. DLR achieved higher power rates than did IRTLRDIF in very short tests, although the high Type I error rate involved means that this result cannot be taken into account.
Test length had an important impact on the Type I error rate. IRTLRDIF and DLR showed a low power rate in short tests and with small sample sizes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0214-9915</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1886-144X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.7334/psicothema2015.142</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26820429</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Spain: Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos (PSICODOC)</publisher><subject>Humans ; Item response theory ; Likelihood Functions ; Logistic Models ; Psychometrics - methods ; Regression analysis ; Sample Size</subject><ispartof>Psicothema, 2016, Vol.28 (1), p.83-88</ispartof><rights>2016. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the associated terms available at https://www.psicothema.com/PublicationNorms2022.pdf</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2778322899/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2778322899?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,4024,25753,27923,27924,27925,37012,37013,44590,75126</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26820429$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hidalgo, María D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>López-Martínez, María D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gómez-Benito, Juana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guilera, Georgina</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of discriminant logistic regression and Item Response Theory Likelihood-Ratio Tests for Differential Item Functioning (IRTLRDIF) in polytomous short tests</title><title>Psicothema</title><addtitle>Psicothema</addtitle><description>Short scales are typically used in the social, behavioural and health sciences. This is relevant since test length can influence whether items showing DIF are correctly flagged. This paper compares the relative effectiveness of discriminant logistic regression (DLR) and IRTLRDIF for detecting DIF in polytomous short tests.
A simulation study was designed. Test length, sample size, DIF amount and item response categories number were manipulated. Type I error and power were evaluated.
IRTLRDIF and DLR yielded Type I error rates close to nominal level in no-DIF conditions. Under DIF conditions, Type I error rates were affected by test length DIF amount, degree of test contamination, sample size and number of item response categories. DLR showed a higher Type I error rate than did IRTLRDIF. Power rates were affected by DIF amount and sample size, but not by test length. DLR achieved higher power rates than did IRTLRDIF in very short tests, although the high Type I error rate involved means that this result cannot be taken into account.
Test length had an important impact on the Type I error rate. IRTLRDIF and DLR showed a low power rate in short tests and with small sample sizes.</description><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Item response theory</subject><subject>Likelihood Functions</subject><subject>Logistic Models</subject><subject>Psychometrics - methods</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Sample Size</subject><issn>0214-9915</issn><issn>1886-144X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkc1u1DAUhS0EokPhBVggS2zKIsX_cZZVy9CRRkIaDRK7yHFuZlwSO9jOYp6I18TVlEqwupvvnHt0DkLvKbmuORef5-RsyEeYDCNUXlPBXqAV1VpVVIgfL9GKMCqqpqHyAr1J6YEQqXjNXqMLpjQjgjUr9PsG2zDNJroUPA4D7l2y0U3OG5_xGA4uZWdxhEOElFxhjO_xJsOEd5Dm4BPg_RFCPOGt-wmjO4bQVzuTXcB7SDnhIUR854YBIvjszHgWrxdvC-OdP-CrzW6_3d1t1p-w83gO4ymHKSwJp2OIGedHm7fo1WDGBO-e7iX6vv6yv72vtt--bm5vtpVlmuWq490goTMdr3UPmpJe1xqkZEqypjEcqJFG9j01VhrBgTRGE0VU11FlgRJ-ia7OvnMMv5byuZ1KITCOxkOJ1NJaUaGk5qKgH_9DH8ISfUnXsrrWnDHdNIViZ8rGkFKEoZ1LvSaeWkraxxnbf2dsy4xF9OHJeukm6J8lf3fjfwDaOp6B</recordid><startdate>2016</startdate><enddate>2016</enddate><creator>Hidalgo, María D</creator><creator>López-Martínez, María D</creator><creator>Gómez-Benito, Juana</creator><creator>Guilera, Georgina</creator><general>Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos (PSICODOC)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2016</creationdate><title>A comparison of discriminant logistic regression and Item Response Theory Likelihood-Ratio Tests for Differential Item Functioning (IRTLRDIF) in polytomous short tests</title><author>Hidalgo, María D ; López-Martínez, María D ; Gómez-Benito, Juana ; Guilera, Georgina</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c282t-b3bf5ebab378de810d878e55265299a3e1a5a5dd1ac5a43e09a80606bb16ce103</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Item response theory</topic><topic>Likelihood Functions</topic><topic>Logistic Models</topic><topic>Psychometrics - methods</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Sample Size</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hidalgo, María D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>López-Martínez, María D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gómez-Benito, Juana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guilera, Georgina</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Psicothema</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hidalgo, María D</au><au>López-Martínez, María D</au><au>Gómez-Benito, Juana</au><au>Guilera, Georgina</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of discriminant logistic regression and Item Response Theory Likelihood-Ratio Tests for Differential Item Functioning (IRTLRDIF) in polytomous short tests</atitle><jtitle>Psicothema</jtitle><addtitle>Psicothema</addtitle><date>2016</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>83</spage><epage>88</epage><pages>83-88</pages><issn>0214-9915</issn><eissn>1886-144X</eissn><abstract>Short scales are typically used in the social, behavioural and health sciences. This is relevant since test length can influence whether items showing DIF are correctly flagged. This paper compares the relative effectiveness of discriminant logistic regression (DLR) and IRTLRDIF for detecting DIF in polytomous short tests.
A simulation study was designed. Test length, sample size, DIF amount and item response categories number were manipulated. Type I error and power were evaluated.
IRTLRDIF and DLR yielded Type I error rates close to nominal level in no-DIF conditions. Under DIF conditions, Type I error rates were affected by test length DIF amount, degree of test contamination, sample size and number of item response categories. DLR showed a higher Type I error rate than did IRTLRDIF. Power rates were affected by DIF amount and sample size, but not by test length. DLR achieved higher power rates than did IRTLRDIF in very short tests, although the high Type I error rate involved means that this result cannot be taken into account.
Test length had an important impact on the Type I error rate. IRTLRDIF and DLR showed a low power rate in short tests and with small sample sizes.</abstract><cop>Spain</cop><pub>Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos (PSICODOC)</pub><pmid>26820429</pmid><doi>10.7334/psicothema2015.142</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0214-9915 |
ispartof | Psicothema, 2016, Vol.28 (1), p.83-88 |
issn | 0214-9915 1886-144X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1761465834 |
source | Publicly Available Content Database |
subjects | Humans Item response theory Likelihood Functions Logistic Models Psychometrics - methods Regression analysis Sample Size |
title | A comparison of discriminant logistic regression and Item Response Theory Likelihood-Ratio Tests for Differential Item Functioning (IRTLRDIF) in polytomous short tests |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T03%3A28%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20discriminant%20logistic%20regression%20and%20Item%20Response%20Theory%20Likelihood-Ratio%20Tests%20for%20Differential%20Item%20Functioning%20(IRTLRDIF)%20in%20polytomous%20short%20tests&rft.jtitle=Psicothema&rft.au=Hidalgo,%20Mar%C3%ADa%20D&rft.date=2016&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=83&rft.epage=88&rft.pages=83-88&rft.issn=0214-9915&rft.eissn=1886-144X&rft_id=info:doi/10.7334/psicothema2015.142&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2778322899%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c282t-b3bf5ebab378de810d878e55265299a3e1a5a5dd1ac5a43e09a80606bb16ce103%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2778322899&rft_id=info:pmid/26820429&rfr_iscdi=true |