↓ Skip to main content

Applying Logistic Regression to Detect Differential Item Functioning in Multidimensional Data

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Applying Logistic Regression to Detect Differential Item Functioning in Multidimensional Data
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01302
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hui-Fang Chen, Kuan-Yu Jin

Abstract

Conventional differential item functioning (DIF) approaches such as logistic regression (LR) often assume unidimensionality of a scale and match participants in the reference and focal groups based on total scores. However, many educational and psychological assessments are multidimensional by design, and a matching variable using total scores that does not reflect the test structure may not be good practice in multidimensional items for DIF detection. We propose the use of all subscores of a scale in LR and compare its performance with alternative matching methods, including the use of total score and individual subscores. We focused on uniform DIF situation in which 250, 500, or 1,000 participants in each group answered 21 items reflecting two dimensions, and the 21st item was the studied item. Five factors were manipulated in the study: (a) the test structure, (b) numbers of cross-loaded items, (c) group differences in latent abilities, (d) the magnitude of DIF, and (e) group sample size. The results showed that, when the studied item measured a single domain, the conventional LR incorporating total scores as a matching variable yielded inflated false positive rates (FPRs) when two groups differed in one latent ability. The situation worsened when one group had a higher ability in one domain and lower ability in another. The LR using a single subscore as the matching variable performed well in terms of FPRs and true positive rates (TPRs) when two groups did not differ in either one latent ability or differed in one latent ability. However, this approach yielded inflated FPRs when two groups differed in two latent abilities. The proposed LR using two subscores yielded well-controlled FPRs across all conditions and yielded the highest TPRs. When the studied item measured two domains, the use of either the total score or two subscores worked well in the control of FPRs and yielded similar TPRs across conditions, whereas the use of a single subscore resulted in inflated FPRs when two groups differed in one or two latent abilities. In conclusion, we recommend the use of multiple subscores to match subjects in DIF detection for multidimensional data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 21%
Lecturer 2 14%
Other 1 7%
Researcher 1 7%
Unknown 7 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 3 21%
Philosophy 1 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 7%
Linguistics 1 7%
Mathematics 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 August 2018.
All research outputs
#15,012,809
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,366
of 30,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,646
of 330,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#525
of 732 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,477 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 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 330,330 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 732 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.