Bayesian inference with spike-and-slab priors for differential item functioning detection in a multiple-group IRT tree model

References

• Baker FB, Kim S-H. Item response theory: parameter estimation techniques. Boca Raton (FL): CRC; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner H, Steenkamp JEM. Response styles in marketing research: a cross-national investigation. J Mark Res. 2001;38:143–156. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.38.2.143.18840
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marín G, Gamba RJ, Marín BV. Extreme response style and acquiescence among Hispanics: The role of acculturation and education. J Cross Cult Psychol. 1992;23:498–509. doi: 10.1177/0022022192234006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen AS, Kim S-H, Baker FB. Detection of differential item functioning in the Graded Response Model. Appl Psychol Meas. 1993;17:335–350. doi: 10.1177/014662169301700402
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pohl S, Schulze D. Assessing group comparisons or change over time under measurement non-invariance: the cluster approach for nonuniform DIF. Psychol Test Assess Model. 2020;62:281–303.
   Google Scholar
• Wainer H, Sireci SG, Thissen D. Differential testlet functioning: definitions and detection. J Educ Meas. 1991;28:197–219. doi: 10.1111/jedm.1991.28.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swaminathan H, Gifford JA. Bayesian estimation in the two-parameter logistic model. Psychometrika. 1985;50:349–364. doi: 10.1007/BF02294110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim S, Cohen AS. A comparison of linking and concurrent calibration under the graded response model. Appl Psychol Meas. 2002;26:25–41. doi: 10.1177/0146621602026001002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stocking M, Lord FM. Developing a common metric in Item Response Theory. Appl Psychol Meas. 1983;7:201–210. doi: 10.1177/014662168300700208
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Candell GL, Drasgow F. An iterative procedure for linking metrics and assessing item bias in item response theory. Appl Psychol Meas. 1988;12:253–260. doi: 10.1177/014662168801200304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopf J, Zeileis A, Strobl C. Anchor selection strategies for DIF analysis: review, assessment, and new approaches. Educ Psychol Meas. 2015;75:22–56. doi: 10.1177/0013164414529792
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park DG, Lautenschlager GJ. Improving IRT item bias detection with iterative linking and ability scale purification. Appl Psychol Meas. 1990;14:163–173. doi: 10.1177/014662169001400205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopf J, Zeileis A, Strobl C. A framework for anchor methods and an iterative forward approach for DIF detection. Appl Psychol Meas. 2015;39:83–103. doi: 10.1177/0146621614544195
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang WC, Shih CL, Sun GW. The DIF-free-then-DIF strategy for the assessment of differential item functioning. Educ Psychol Meas. 2012;72:687–708. doi: 10.1177/0013164411426157
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods CM. Empirical selection of anchors for tests of differential item functioning. Appl Psychol Meas. 2009;33:42–57. doi: 10.1177/0146621607314044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holman R, Glas CAW. Modeling non-ignorable missing data mechanisms with item response theory models. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2005;58:1–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mislevy RJ, Wu P-K. Inferring examinee ability when some item responses are missing. Princeton (NJ): Educational Testing Service; 1988 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 395 017).
   Google Scholar
• Bernaards CA, Sijtsma K. Influence of imputation and EM methods on factor analysis when item nonresponse in questionnaire data is nonignorable. Multivariate Behav Res. 2000;35:321–364. doi: 10.1207/S15327906MBR3503_03
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finch H. Estimation of item response theory parameters in the presence of missing data. J Educ Meas. 2008;45:225–245. doi: 10.1111/jedm.2008.45.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin DB. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: Wiley; 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Dempster AP, Laird NM, Rubin DB. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 1977;39:1–38.
   Google Scholar
• Honaker J, King G, Blackwell M. Amelia II: a program for missing data. J Stat Softw. 2011;45:1–47. doi: 10.18637/jss.v045.i07
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knott M, Albanese M, Galbraith J. Scoring attitudes to abortion. Statistician. 1991;40:217–223. doi: 10.2307/2348494
   Google Scholar
• O'Muircheartaigh C, Moustaki I. Symmetric pattern models: a latent variable approach to item non-response in attitude scales. J R Stat Soc Ser A. 1999;162:177–194. doi: 10.1111/1467-985X.00129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang Y-W, Hsu N-J, Tsai R. An item response tree model with not-all-distinct end nodes for non-response modeling. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. 2021;74:487–512. doi: 10.1111/bmsp.v74.3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Debeer D, Janssen R, De Boeck P. Modeling skipped and not-reached items using IRTrees. J Educ Meas. 2017;54:333–363. doi: 10.1111/jedm.2017.54.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishwaran H, Rao JS. Spike and slab variable selection: frequentist and Bayesian strategies. Ann Stat. 2005;33:730–773. doi: 10.1214/009053604000001147
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ročková V, George EI. The spike-and-slab LASSO. J Am Stat Assoc. 2018;113:431–444. doi: 10.1080/01621459.2016.1260469
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulitzsch E, von Davier M, Pohl S. Using response times for joint modeling of response and omission behavior. Multivariate Behav Res. 2020;55:425–453. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2019.1643699
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonçalves FB, Dias BCC, Soares TM. Bayesian item response model: a generalized approach for the abilities' distribution using mixtures. J Stat Comput Simul. 2018;88:967–981. doi: 10.1080/00949655.2017.1413650
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holland PW, Wainer H. Differential item functioning. New York: Routledge; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Millsap RE. Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. New York: Routledge; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Chang Y-W, Hsu N-J, Tsai R. Unifying differential item functioning in factor analysis for categorical data under a discretization of a normal variant. Psychometrika. 2017;82:382–406. doi: 10.1007/s11336-017-9562-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen SM, Bauer DJ, Belzak WM, et al. Advantages of spike and slab priors for detecting differential item functioning relative to other Bayesian regularizing priors and frequentist Lasso. Struct Equ Modeling. 2022;29:122–139. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2021.1948335
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millsap RE, Tein YJ. Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. Multivariate Behav Res. 2004;39:479–515. doi: 10.1207/S15327906MBR3903_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• dos Santos JRS, Azevedo CLN, Fox J-P. Bayesian longitudinal item response modeling with multivariate asymmetric serial dependencies. J Stat Comput Simul. 2022;92:488–523. doi: 10.1080/00949655.2021.1965604
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George EI, McCulloch RE. Variable selection via Gibbs sampling. J Am Stat Assoc. 1993;88:881–889. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1993.10476353
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell TJ, Beauchamp JJ. Bayesian variable selection in linear regression. J Am Stat Assoc. 1988;83:1023–1032. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1988.10478694
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee K-J, Chen R-B. Bayesian variable selection in a finite mixture of linear mixed-effects models. J Stat Comput Simul. 2019;89:2434–2453. doi: 10.1080/00949655.2019.1620746
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishwaran H, Rao JS. Spike and slab gene selection for multigroup microarray data. J Am Stat Assoc. 2005;100:764–780. doi: 10.1198/016214505000000051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheipl F, Fahrmeir L, Kneib T. Spike-and-slab priors for function selection in structured additive regression models. J Am Stat Assoc. 2012;107:1518–1532. doi: 10.1080/01621459.2012.737742
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang Y-W, Tu J-Y. Bayesian estimation for an item response tree model for nonresponse modeling. Metrika. 2022;85:1023–1047. doi: 10.1007/s00184-022-00858-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho S-J, Cohen AS, Kim S-H. Markov chain Monte Carlo estimation of a mixture item response theory model. J Stat Comput Simul. 2013;83:215–241. doi: 10.1080/00949655.2011.603090
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox J-P. Bayesian item response modeling-theory and applications. New York: Springer; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Swaminathan H, Gifford JA. Bayesian estimation in the three-parameter logistic model. Psychometrika. 1986;51:589–601. doi: 10.1007/BF02295598
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim S, Cohen AS, Baker FB, et al. An investigation of hierarchical Bayes procedures in item response theory. Psychometrika. 1994;59:405–421. doi: 10.1007/BF02296133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geman S, Geman D. Stochastic relaxation, Gibbs distributions, and the Bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 1984;6:721–741. doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.1984.4767596
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hastings WK. Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications. Biometrika. 1970;57:97–109. doi: 10.1093/biomet/57.1.97
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2022. https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Gelman A, Rubin DB. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences (with discussion). Stat Sci. 1992;7:457–511.
   Google Scholar
• Barbieri MM, Berger JO. Optimal predictive model selection. Ann Stat. 2004;32:870–897. doi: 10.1214/009053604000000238
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim ES, Yoon M. Testing measurement invariance: a comparison of multiple-group categorical CFA and IRT. Struct Equ Modeling. 2011;18:212–228. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2011.557337
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stark S, Chernyshenko OS, Drasgow F. Detecting differential item functioning with confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: toward a unified strategy. J Appl Psychol. 2006;91:1292–1306. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1292
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merkle EC, Fan J, Zeileis A. Testing for measurement invariance with respect to an ordinal variable. Psychometrika. 2014;79:569–584. doi: 10.1007/s11336-013-9376-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoon M, Millsap RE. Detecting violations of factorial invariance using data-based specification searches: a Monte Carlo study. Struct Equ Modeling. 2007;14:435–463. doi: 10.1080/10705510701301677
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer DJ, Belzak WCM, Cole VT. Simplifying the assessment of measurement invariance over multiple background variables: using regularized moderated nonlinear factor analysis to detect differential item functioning. Struct Equ Modeling. 2020;27:43–55. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2019.1642754
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fidalgo AM, Ferreres D, Muñiz J. Utility of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure for detecting differential item functioning in small samples. Educ Psychol Meas. 2004;64:925–936. doi: 10.1177/0013164404267288
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narayanan P, Swaminathan H. Performance of the Mantel-Haenszel and simultaneous item bias procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Appl Psychol Meas. 1994;18:315–328. doi: 10.1177/014662169401800403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. PISA 2012 technical report. OECD Publishing; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. PISA database. PISA; 2012. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/
   Google Scholar
• Böckenholt U. Modeling motivated misreports to sensitive survey questions. Psychometrika. 2014;79:515–537. doi: 10.1007/s11336-013-9390-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Boeck P, Partchev I. IRTrees: tree-based item response models of the GLMM family. J Stat Softw. 2012;48(Code Snippet 1):1–28. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.c01
   Google Scholar
• Matzke D, Dolan CV, Batchelder WH, et al. Bayesian estimation of multinomial processing tree models with heterogeneity in participants and items. Psychometrika. 2015;80:205–235. doi: 10.1007/s11336-013-9374-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar