The DOI matches its Crossref record.
British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology
Open accessAbstract
Differential item functioning (DIF) analysis is essential for evaluating measurement invariance in educational and psychological assessments.In cognitive diagnostic assessment, however, most existing methods require prespecified comparison subgroups and anchor items.When subgroup membership and anchor items are unavailable or mis-specified, DIF detection and parameter estimation may be biased.To overcome these limitations, this study puts forward a DIF detection method that incorporates an extended modelling framework and a two-stage estimation algorithm.The proposed modelling framework directly integrates DIF parameters into the measurement model and uses a structural model to characterize subgroup differences in attribute mastery distributions.A two-stage expectation maximization algorithm with an adaptive lasso penalty is developed to identify anchor items, classify respondents into latent subgroups and estimate model parameters.The performance of the proposed method was evaluated through a simulation study and an empirical data analysis.Simulation results indicated generally satisfactory DIF detection and parameter recovery, although subgroup-classification accuracy varied across conditions.When applied to the empirical data, the proposed method identified 10 of the 28 items as exhibiting DIF.
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
Cited by
Li, C.-H. (2016) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7 · Cited by 3,031
TEACHER’S CORNER: Testing Measurement Invariance of Second-Order Factor Models
Chen, F. F., Sousa, K. H., & West, S. G. (2005) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1203_7 · Cited by 1,032
Between-Groups Comparison of Principal Components
Krzanowski, W. J. (1979) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1979.10481674 · Cited by 533
Default Bayes Factors for Model Selection in Regression
Rouder, J. N., & Morey, R. D. (2012) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273171.2012.734737 · Cited by 477
A new strategy for testing structural equation models
Moshagen, M., & Erdfelder, E. (2016) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.950896 · Cited by 321
Metadata
- Venue
- British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-12-15
- ISSN
- 0007-1102 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4237559595
- Cited by
- 385
- References
- 0
- Type
- paratext
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/(issn)2044-8317
- The paper
- British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. (2010). British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/(issn)2044-8317
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.