ArticleEducational and psychological measurement2026
Consensus Among Differential Item Functioning Effect Size Measures: A Simplified Approach to Reporting Effect Size.
Article in Educational and psychological measurement, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Differential item functioning (DIF) is an issue of a measure that can lead to differences in item scores between subpopulations (e.g., sex, race, age) while controlling for a latent trait or ability level. It is important to report DIF effect size measures to understand the practical significance of DIF results as well. We reviewed 15 different DIF effect size measures in the literature, and no previous study had examined whether the 15 DIF effect size measures agreed with one another, which has implications in the number and type of measures to report. The present study investigated the relationship among DIF effect size measures in 1PL, 2PL, and GRM models and provide clear recommendations to applied researchers for their reporting. Our simulation results showed that, for each model, three effect size measures can be reported to obtain the most unique information about uniform DIF and the least bias from sampling conditions (e.g., sample size and impact): Mantel-Haenszel Delta, McFadden's Pseudo R-squared, and a signed DIF measure. However, the optimal signed DIF measure varies by model, with Signed Area under the curve for the 1PL model, Standardized P-difference for the 2PL, and Signed Item Difference in the Sample/Normal Distribution for the GRM. The recommended approach to reporting DIF effect size improves the detection of DIF through practical significance and provides researchers with more tools to address bias.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.