Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33897070›Full record

ArticleApplied psychological measurement2021

Anchor Point Selection: Scale Alignment Based on an Inequality Criterion.

Carolin Strobl, Julia Kopf, Lucas Kohler, Timo von Oertzen, Achim Zeileis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied psychological measurement, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Carolin StroblUniversität Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0952-3230
Julia KopfUniversität Zürich, Switzerland.
Lucas KohlerUniversität Zürich, Switzerland.
Timo von OertzenUniversität der Bundeswehr München, Germany.
Achim ZeileisUniversität Innsbruck, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For detecting differential item functioning (DIF) between two or more groups of test takers in the Rasch model, their item parameters need to be placed on the same scale. Typically this is done by means of choosing a set of so-called anchor items based on statistical tests or heuristics. Here the authors suggest an alternative strategy: By means of an inequality criterion from economics, the Gini Index, the item parameters are shifted to an optimal position where the item parameter estimates of the groups best overlap. Several toy examples, extensive simulation studies, and two empirical application examples are presented to illustrate the properties of the Gini Index as an anchor point selection criterion and compare its properties to those of the criterion used in the alignment approach of Asparouhov and Muthén. In particular, the authors show that-in addition to the globally optimal position for the anchor point-the criterion plot contains valuable additional information and may help discover unaccounted DIF-inducing multidimensionality. They further provide mathematical results that enable an efficient sparse grid optimization and make it feasible to extend the approach, for example, to multiple group scenarios.

Indexed as

anchor itemsdifferential item functioning (DIF)item biasitem clusters

Identifiers

PMID33897070
PMCPMC8041453

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.