Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27403207›Full record

ArticleComputational and mathematical methods in medicine2016

A Simulation Study to Assess the Effect of the Number of Response Categories on the Power of Ordinal Logistic Regression for Differential Item Functioning Analysis in Rating Scales.

Elahe Allahyari, Peyman Jafari, Zahra Bagheri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Elahe AllahyariDepartment of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Peyman JafariDepartment of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Zahra BagheriDepartment of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective. The present study uses simulated data to find what the optimal number of response categories is to achieve adequate power in ordinal logistic regression (OLR) model for differential item functioning (DIF) analysis in psychometric research. Methods. A hypothetical ten-item quality of life scale with three, four, and five response categories was simulated. The power and type I error rates of OLR model for detecting uniform DIF were investigated under different combinations of ability distribution (θ), sample size, sample size ratio, and the magnitude of uniform DIF across reference and focal groups. Results. When θ was distributed identically in the reference and focal groups, increasing the number of response categories from 3 to 5 resulted in an increase of approximately 8% in power of OLR model for detecting uniform DIF. The power of OLR was less than 0.36 when ability distribution in the reference and focal groups was highly skewed to the left and right, respectively. Conclusions. The clearest conclusion from this research is that the minimum number of response categories for DIF analysis using OLR is five. However, the impact of the number of response categories in detecting DIF was lower than might be expected.

Indexed as

Regression AnalysisAlgorithmsComputational BiologyComputer SimulationFocus GroupsHumansModels, StatisticalMonte Carlo MethodProbabilityPsychometricsQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSample SizeSeverity of Illness Index

Identifiers

PMID27403207
PMCPMC4925975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.