IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jedbes/v35y2010i6p726-743.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Strategies for Estimating Conditional DIF

Author

Listed:
  • Tim Moses
  • Jing Miao
  • Neil J. Dorans

Abstract

In this study, the accuracies of four strategies were compared for estimating conditional differential item functioning (DIF), including raw data, logistic regression, log-linear models, and kernel smoothing. Real data simulations were used to evaluate the estimation strategies across six items, DIF and No DIF situations, and four sample size combinations for the reference and focal group data. Results showed that logistic regression was the most recommended strategy in terms of the bias and variability of its estimates. The log-linear models strategy had flexibility advantages, but these advantages only offset the greater variability of its estimates when sample sizes were large. Kernel smoothing was the least accurate of the considered strategies due to estimation problems when the reference and focal groups differed in overall ability.

Suggested Citation

  • Tim Moses & Jing Miao & Neil J. Dorans, 2010. "A Comparison of Strategies for Estimating Conditional DIF," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 35(6), pages 726-743, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jedbes:v:35:y:2010:i:6:p:726-743
    DOI: 10.3102/1076998610379135
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/1076998610379135
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3102/1076998610379135?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robin Shealy & William Stout, 1993. "A model-based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from group ability differences and detects test bias/DTF as well as item bias/DIF," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 58(2), pages 159-194, June.
    2. J. Ramsay, 1991. "Kernel smoothing approaches to nonparametric item characteristic curve estimation," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 56(4), pages 611-630, December.
    3. Hendrikus Kelderman, 1984. "Loglinear Rasch model tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 49(2), pages 223-245, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alexander Robitzsch, 2024. "Bias-Reduced Haebara and Stocking–Lord Linking," J, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-12, September.
    2. Henry Santa-Cruz-Espinoza & Gina Chávez-Ventura & Julio Domínguez-Vergara & César Merino-Soto, 2023. "Internal Structure of the Work–Family Conflict Questionnaire (WFCQ) in Teacher Teleworking," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-16, January.
    3. Cees Glas, 1988. "The derivation of some tests for the rasch model from the multinomial distribution," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 53(4), pages 525-546, December.
    4. Benjamin Williams, 2019. "Identification of a nonseparable model under endogeneity using binary proxies for unobserved heterogeneity," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 10(2), pages 527-563, May.
    5. Jesper Tijmstra & Herbert Hoijtink & Klaas Sijtsma, 2015. "Evaluating Manifest Monotonicity Using Bayes Factors," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(4), pages 880-896, December.
    6. Javier Revuelta, 2004. "Analysis of distractor difficulty in multiple-choice items," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 69(2), pages 217-234, June.
    7. Joakim Wallmark & James O. Ramsay & Juan Li & Marie Wiberg, 2024. "Analyzing Polytomous Test Data: A Comparison Between an Information-Based IRT Model and the Generalized Partial Credit Model," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 49(5), pages 753-779, October.
    8. Youmi Suk & Kyung T. Han, 2024. "A Psychometric Framework for Evaluating Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: Differential Algorithmic Functioning," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 49(2), pages 151-172, April.
    9. Leah M. Feuerstahler, 2019. "Metric Transformations and the Filtered Monotonic Polynomial Item Response Model," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 84(1), pages 105-123, March.
    10. J. Ramsay, 1995. "A similarity-based smoothing approach to nondimensional item analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 60(3), pages 323-339, September.
    11. César Merino-Soto & Milagros Lozano-Huamán & Sadith Lima-Mendoza & Gustavo Calderón de la Cruz & Arturo Juárez-García & Filiberto Toledano-Toledano, 2022. "Ultrashort Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-3): A Psychometric Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-14, January.
    12. Karl Klauer & William Batchelder, 1996. "Structural analysis of subjective categorical data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 61(2), pages 199-239, June.
    13. Chanjin Zheng & Shaoyang Guo & Justin L Kern, 2021. "Fast Bayesian Estimation for the Four-Parameter Logistic Model (4PLM)," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, October.
    14. Christian Genest & Johanna G. Nešlehová, 2014. "A Conversation with James O. Ramsay," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 82(2), pages 161-183, August.
    15. Clemens Draxler, 2018. "Bayesian conditional inference for Rasch models," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 102(2), pages 245-262, April.
    16. Alexander Robitzsch, 2020. "L p Loss Functions in Invariance Alignment and Haberman Linking with Few or Many Groups," Stats, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-38, August.
    17. Johnson, Matthew S., 2007. "Modeling dichotomous item responses with free-knot splines," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(9), pages 4178-4192, May.
    18. Francesca Fortuna & Fabrizio Maturo, 2019. "K-means clustering of item characteristic curves and item information curves via functional principal component analysis," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(5), pages 2291-2304, September.
    19. Alexander Robitzsch, 2025. "Comparing Robust Haberman Linking and Invariance Alignment," Stats, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, January.
    20. Minjeong Jeon & Frank Rijmen & Sophia Rabe-Hesketh, 2013. "Modeling Differential Item Functioning Using a Generalization of the Multiple-Group Bifactor Model," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 38(1), pages 32-60, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jedbes:v:35:y:2010:i:6:p:726-743. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.