Testing for differential item functioning (DIF) has undergone rapid statistical developments recently. Moderated nonlinear factor analysis (MNLFA) allows for simultaneous testing of DIF among multiple categorical and continuous covariates (e.g., sex, age, ethnicity, etc.), and regularization has shown promising results for identifying DIF among many covariates. However, computationally inefficient estimation methods have hampered practical use of the regularized MNFLA method. We develop a penalized expectation–maximization (EM) algorithm with soft- and firm-thresholding to more efficiently estimate regularized MNLFA parameters. Simulation and empirical results show that, compared to previous implementations of regularized MNFLA, the penalized EM algorithm is faster, more flexible, and more statistically principled. This method also yields similar recovery of DIF relative to previous implementations, suggesting that regularized DIF detection remains a preferred approach over traditional methods of identifying DIF.
AndersenE. B. (1970). Asymptotic properties of conditional maximum-likelihood estimators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 32(2), 283–301.
2.
BauerD. J. (2017). A more general model for testing measurement invariance and differential item functioning. Psychological Methods, 22(3), 507–526.
3.
BauerD. J.BelzakW. C. M.ColeV. T. (2020). Simplifying the assessment of measurement invariance over multiple background variables: Using regularized moderated nonlinear factor analysis to detect differential item functioning. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27(1), 43–55.
4.
BauerD. J.HussongA. M. (2009). Psychometric approaches for developing commensurate measures across independent studies: Traditional and new models. Psychological Methods, 14(2), 101–125.
5.
BelzakW. C. M. (2021). Using regularization to evaluate differential item functioning among multiple covariates: A penalized expectation maximization algorithm via coordinate descent and soft-thresholding[Doctoral Dissertation]. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
6.
BelzakW. C. M. (2023). The regDIF R package: Evaluating complex sources of measurement bias using regularized differential item functioning. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1–11.
7.
BelzakW. C. M.BauerD. J. (2020). Improving the assessment of measurement invariance: Using regularization to select anchor items and identify differential item functioning. Psychological Methods, 25(6), 673–690.
8.
BienJ.TaylorJ.TibshiraniR. (2013). A LASSO for hierarchical interactions. Annals of Statistics, 41(3), 1111–1141.
9.
BockR. D.AitkinM. (1981). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika, 46(4), 443–459.
10.
BockR. D.LiebermanM. (1970). Fitting a response model for n dichotomously scored items. Psychometrika, 35(2), 179–197.
11.
BollenK. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables (Vol. 210). John Wiley.
12.
BoydS. P.VandenbergheL. (2004). Convex optimization. Cambridge University Press.
13.
BrehenyP.HuangJ. (2011). Coordinate descent algorithms for nonconvex penalized regression, with applications to biological feature selection. Annals of Applied Statistics, 5(1), 232–253.
CohenJ.CohenP.WestS. G.AikenL. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
16.
CurranP. J.ColeV. T.BauerD. J.RothenbergW. A.HussongA. M. (2018). Recovering predictor–criterion relations using covariate-informed factor score estimates. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(6), 860–875.
17.
DonohoD. L. (1995). De-noising by soft-thresholding. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 41(3), 613–627.
18.
DempsterA. P.LairdN. M.RubinD. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 39(1), 1–22.
19.
EdelenM. O.StuckyB. D.ChandraA. (2015). Quantifying ‘problematic’ DIF within an IRT framework: Application to a cancer stigma index. Quality of Life Research, 24(1), 95–103.
20.
FanJ.LiR. (2001). Variable selection via nonconcave penalized likelihood and its oracle properties. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96(456), 1348–1360.
21.
FriedmanJ.HastieT.TibshiraniR. (2010). Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. Journal of Statistical Software, 33(1), 1–22.
22.
HansenM.CaiL.StuckyB. D.TuckerJ. S.ShadelW. G.EdelenM. O. (2014). Methodology for developing and evaluating the PROMIS smoking item banks. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 16(Suppl_3), S175–S189.
23.
HastieT.TibshiraniR.FriedmanJ. (2017). The elements of statistical learning. Springer.
24.
HoerlA. E.KennardR. W. (1970). Ridge regression: Biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems. Technometrics, 12(1), 55–67.
25.
HollandP. W.ThayerD. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In WainerH.BraunH. I. (Eds.), Test validity (p. 129–145). Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
HuangP. H. (2018). A penalized likelihood method for multi-group structural equation modelling. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 71(3), 499–522.
27.
HussongA. M.CurranP. J.BauerD. J. (2013). Integrative data analysis in clinical psychology research. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 61–89.
28.
KopfJ.ZeileisA.StroblC. (2015). Anchor selection strategies for DIF analysis: Review, assessment, and new approaches. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 75(1), 22–56.
29.
LiangX.JacobucciR. (2020). Regularized structural equation modeling to detect measurement bias: Evaluation of LASSO, adaptive LASSO, and elastic net. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27(5), 722–734.
30.
LeeJ. D.SunY.SaundersM. (2012). Proximal Newton-type methods for convex optimization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 25, 1–9.
31.
MagisD.TuerlinckxF.De BoeckP. (2015). Detection of differential item functioning using the LASSO approach. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 40(2), 111–135.
32.
McCullaghP.NelderJ. A. (1989). Generalized linear models (Vol. 2). Chapman & Hall, CRC Press.
33.
MillsapR. E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. Routledge.
RaschG. (1961). On general laws and the meaning of measurement in psychology. In Proceedings of the Furth Berkeley Smposium on Mthematical Satistics and Pobability (Vol. 4, pp. 321–333).
36.
RobitzschA. (2020). Lp loss functions in invariance alignment and Haberman linking with few or many groups. Stats, 3(3), 246–283.
37.
SamejimaF. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, 34(4, Pt. 2), 100.
38.
SAS Institute. (2018). Base SAS 9.4 Procedures Guide. SAS Institute.
39.
SchaubergerG.MairP. (2020). A regularization approach for the detection of differential item functioning in generalized partial credit models. Behavior Research Methods, 52(1), 279–294.
40.
SunJ.ChenY.LiuJ.YingZ.XinT. (2016). Latent variable selection for multidimensional item response theory models via regularization. Psychometrika, 81(4), 921–939.
41.
ThissenD.SteinbergL.WainerH. (1993). Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. In HollandP. W.WainerH. (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 67–113). Lawrence Erlbaum.
42.
TibshiraniR. (1996). Regression shrinkage and selection via the LASSO. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 58(1), 267–288.
43.
TutzG.SchaubergerG. (2015). A penalty approach to differential item functioning in Rasch models. Psychometrika, 80(1), 21–43.
44.
WangW. C.ShihC. L.SunG. W. (2012). The DIF-free-then-DIF strategy for the assessment of differential item functioning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(4), 687–708.
45.
WangC.ZhuR.XuG. (2023). Using LASSO and adaptive LASSO to identify DIF in multidimensional 2PL models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 58(2), 387–407.
46.
WoodsC.M. (2009). Empirical selection of anchors for tests of differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33(1), 42–57.
47.
ZhangC. H. (2010). Nearly unbiased variable selection under minimax concave penalty. Annals of Statistics, 38(2), 894–942.
48.
ZhaoP.YuB. (2006). On model selection consistency of LASSO. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 7, 2541–2563.
49.
ZouH.LiR. (2008). One-step sparse estimates in nonconcave penalized likelihood models. Annals of Statistics, 36(4), 1509.
50.
ZouH. (2006). The adaptive lasso and its oracle properties. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101(476), 1418–1429.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
