ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2026
Internal validation methods to detect patient characteristics associated with differential item functioning in patient-reported outcome measures.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDifferential item functioning (DIF) detection methods are one tool to assess validity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Given the growing interest in machine-learning models for the analysis of PROMs data, including for DIF detection, internal cross-validation (CV) is recommended to assess model performance. We compared two CV methods for DIF models in simulated and real-world data.
methodsTwo common CV methods, k-fold and holdout CV, were compared for a machine-learning recursive partitioning model to detect DIF. Simulation parameters included sample size, number of items and covariates associated with DIF, and DIF effect size. Simulation performance was assessed using true positive rate (TPR; power) and false positive rate (FPR; Type I error) for items, covariates, and all item-covariate combinations. DIF performance was also assessed in real-world Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) item responses using area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve.
resultsIn simulations, TPRs for consistently identifying items and covariates associated with DIF increased as DIF effect size, sample size, and number of items increased for both CV methods. The 10-fold CV method had the highest TPR in many conditions reaching nearly 100% at the item-covariate level while the 50% holdout CV method had the lowest FPR. For HADS items, DIF detection varied between CV methods, with AUROC ranging from 0.74 to 0.80.
conclusionThe choice of a CV method for a machine-learning model to detect DIF affected consistency of DIF item detection. The 10-fold CV method was advantageous for balancing systematic error and data stability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41920240What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.