The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Detecting differential item functioning with confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Toward a unified strategy.
Abstract
In this article, the authors developed a common strategy for identifying differential item functioning (DIF) items that can be implemented in both the mean and covariance structures method (MACS) and item response theory (IRT). They proposed examining the loadings (discrimination) and the intercept (location) parameters simultaneously using the likelihood ratio test with a free-baseline model and Bonferroni corrected critical p values. They compared the relative efficacy of this approach with alternative implementations for various types and amounts of DIF, sample sizes, numbers of response categories, and amounts of impact (latent mean differences). Results indicated that the proposed strategy was considerably more effective than an alternative approach involving a constrained-baseline model. Both MACS and IRT performed similarly well in the majority of experimental conditions. As expected, MACS performed slightly worse in dichotomous conditions but better than IRT in polytomous cases where sample sizes were small. Also, contrary to popular belief, MACS performed well in conditions where DIF was simulated on item thresholds (item means), and its accuracy was not affected by impact.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/109442810031002 · Cited by 7,997
LISREL 7 : user's reference guide
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1989) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 6,783
Applications of Item Response Theory To Practical Testing Problems
Lord, F. M. (2012) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203056615 · Cited by 5,007
Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross‐National Consumer Research
Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209528 · Cited by 4,750
Byrne, B. M. (1998) · Cited by 3,873
(1999) · Cited by 2,653
ESTIMATION OF LATENT ABILITY USING A RESPONSE PATTERN OF GRADED SCORES1
Samejima, F. (1968) · ETS Research Bulletin Series · doi:10.1002/j.2333-8504.1968.tb00153.x · Cited by 2,587
Differential Item Functioning.
Gudgeon, A. C., Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (1994) · The Statistician · doi:10.2307/2348590 · Cited by 2,091
Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL
Hayduk, L. (1988) · Johns Hopkins University Press eBooks · doi:10.56021/9780801834783 · Cited by 1,855
A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research
Horn, J. L., & Mcardle, J. J. (1992) · Experimental Aging Research · doi:10.1080/03610739208253916 · Cited by 1,592
Cited by
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004 · Cited by 4,369
“…may be tested in a single step (Muthén & Asparouhov, 2002), and models intended to compare SEM-CFA to IRT methods may also report a combined metric-and-scalar invariance step because discrimination and location parameters are conventionally tested together in IRT (e.g., Stark et al., 2006).”
MethodPower and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance.
Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2008) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568 · Cited by 1,668
Measurement invariance: Review of practice and implications
Schmitt, N., & Kuljanin, G. (2008) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.03.003 · Cited by 759
Gender differences in narcissism: A meta-analytic review.
Grijalva, E., Newman, D. A., Tay, L., Donnellan, M. B., Harms, P. D., Robins, R. W., & Yan, T. (2015) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0038231 · Cited by 654
Core outcome measurement instruments for clinical trials in nonspecific low back pain
Chiarotto, A., Boers, M., Deyo, R. A., Buchbinder, R., Corbin, T. P., Costa, L. O. P., Foster, N. E., Grotle, M., Koes, B. W., Kovacs, F. M., et al. (2018) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001117 · Cited by 461
Metadata
- Authors
- Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Drasgow, F.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 2006-11
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1292-1306
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W2071813414
- Cited by
- 437
- References
- 35
- FWCI
- 14.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Detecting differential item functioning with confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Toward a unified strategy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1292
- The paper
- Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Drasgow, F. (2006). Detecting differential item functioning with confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Toward a unified strategy. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1292
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
