↓ Skip to main content

Examining DIF in the Context of CDMs When the Q-Matrix Is Misspecified

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Examining DIF in the Context of CDMs When the Q-Matrix Is Misspecified
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00696
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dubravka Svetina, Yanan Feng, Justin Paulsen, Montserrat Valdivia, Arturo Valdivia, Shenghai Dai

Abstract

The rise in popularity and use of cognitive diagnostic models (CDMs) in educational research are partly motivated by the models' ability to provide diagnostic information regarding students' strengths and weaknesses in a variety of content areas. An important step to ensure appropriate interpretations from CDMs is to investigate differential item functioning (DIF). To this end, the current simulation study examined the performance of three methods to detect DIF in CDMs, with particular emphasis on the impact of Q-matrix misspecification on methods' performance. Results illustrated that logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel had better control of Type I error than the Wald test; however, high power rates were found using logistic regression and Wald methods, only. In addition to the tradeoff between Type I error control and acceptable power, our results suggested that Q-matrix complexity and item structures yield different results for different methods, presenting a more complex picture of the methods' performance. Finally, implications and future directions are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 18%
Researcher 4 18%
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 27%
Social Sciences 5 23%
Computer Science 2 9%
Mathematics 1 5%
Linguistics 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 5 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 June 2018.
All research outputs
#15,506,823
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,997
of 30,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,421
of 325,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#474
of 639 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,353 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,573 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 639 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.