An official website of the United States government
Multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy (MAIHDA) enables intersectional quantitative educational research with distinct advantages over fixed-effects models. Using data from 9,672 physics students across 40 institutions, we compared MAIHDA to traditional fixed-effects models to assess the two methods’ theoretical alignment with intersectionality and ability to model outcomes for diverse social groups. The results indicated that MAIHDA provided more precise measures of outcomes for 95 of the 106 intersectional groups. The manuscript offers guidance for applying MAIHDA in educational research, including R code, and emphasizes the responsibility of researchers to consider critical quantitative theory throughout the research process.
more »
« less
Comparing the Efficacy of Fixed-Effects and MAIHDA Models in Predicting Outcomes for Intersectional Social Strata
This investigation examines the efficacy of multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy (MAIHDA) over fixed-effects models when performing intersectional studies. The research questions are as follows: (1) What are typical strata representation rates and outcomes on physics research-based assessments? (2) To what extent do MAIHDA models create more accurate predicted strata outcomes than fixed-effects models? and (3) To what extent do MAIHDA models allow the modeling of smaller strata sample sizes? We simulated 3,000 data sets based on real-world data from 5,955 students on the LASSO platform. We found that MAIHDA created more accurate and precise predictions than fixed-effects models. We also found that using MAIHDA could allow researchers to disaggregate their data further, creating smaller group sample sizes while maintaining more accurate findings than fixed-effects models. We recommend using MAIHDA over fixed-effects models for intersectional investigations.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10512746
- Publisher / Repository:
- SAGE Publications
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Sociology of Education
- Volume:
- 97
- Issue:
- 4
- ISSN:
- 0038-0407
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 342-362
- Size(s):
- p. 342-362
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Structured demographic models are among the most common and useful tools in population biology. However, the introduction of integral projection models (IPMs) has caused a profound shift in the way many demographic models are conceptualized. Some researchers have argued that IPMs, by explicitly representing demographic processes as continuous functions of state variables such as size, are more statistically efficient, biologically realistic, and accurate than classic matrix projection models, calling into question the usefulness of the many studies based on matrix models. Here, we evaluate how IPMs and matrix models differ, as well as the extent to which these differences matter for estimation of key model outputs, including population growth rates, sensitivity patterns, and life spans. First, we detail the steps in constructing and using each type of model. Second, we present a review of published demographic models, concentrating on size‐based studies, which shows significant overlap in the way IPMs and matrix models are constructed and analyzed. Third, to assess the impact of various modeling decisions on demographic predictions, we ran a series of simulations based on size‐based demographic data sets for five biologically diverse species. We found little evidence that discrete vital rate estimation is less accurate than continuous functions across a wide range of sample sizes or size classes (equivalently bin numbers or mesh points). Most model outputs quickly converged with modest class numbers (≥10), regardless of most other modeling decisions. Another surprising result was that the most commonly used method to discretize growth rates for IPM analyses can introduce substantial error into model outputs. Finally, we show that empirical sample sizes generally matter more than modeling approach for the accuracy of demographic outputs. Based on these results, we provide specific recommendations to those constructing and evaluating structured population models. Both our literature review and simulations question the treatment of IPMs as a clearly distinct modeling approach or one that is inherently more accurate than classic matrix models. Importantly, this suggests that matrix models, representing the vast majority of past demographic analyses available for comparative and conservation work, continue to be useful and important sources of demographic information.more » « less
-
Abstract Differential item functioning (DIF) screening has long been suggested to ensure assessment fairness. Traditional DIF methods typically focus on the main effects of demographic variables on item parameters, overlooking the interactions among multiple identities. Drawing on the intersectionality framework, we define intersectional DIF as deviations in item parameters that arise from the interactions among demographic variables beyond their main effects and propose a novel item response theory (IRT) approach for detecting intersectional DIF. Under our framework, fixed effects are used to account for traditional DIF, while random item effects are introduced to capture intersectional DIF. We further introduce the concept of intersectional impact, which refers to interaction effects on group-level mean ability. Depending on which item parameters are affected and whether intersectional impact is considered, we propose four models, which aim to detect intersectional uniform DIF (UDIF), intersectional UDIF with intersectional impact, intersectional non-uniform DIF (NUDIF), and intersectional NUDIF with intersectional impact, respectively. For efficient model estimation, a regularized Gaussian variational expectation-maximization algorithm is developed. Simulation studies demonstrate that our methods can effectively detect intersectional UDIF, although their detection of intersectional NUDIF is more limited.more » « less
-
Summary A fundamental challenge in semi-supervised learning lies in the observed data’s disproportional size when compared with the size of the data collected with missing outcomes. An implicit understanding is that the dataset with missing outcomes, being significantly larger, ought to improve estimation and inference. However, it is unclear to what extent this is correct. We illustrate one clear benefit: root-$$n$$ inference of the outcome’s mean is possible while only requiring a consistent estimation of the outcome, possibly at a rate slower than root $$n$$. This is achieved by a novel $$k$$-fold, cross-fitted, double robust estimator. We discuss both linear and nonlinear outcomes. Such an estimator is particularly suited for models that naturally do not admit root-$$n$$ consistency, such as high-dimensional, nonparametric or semiparametric models. We apply our methods to estimating heterogeneous treatment effects.more » « less
-
This article explores how critical theory informs quantitative methods to tackle systemic inequities in education. We critique traditional quantitative training that prioritizes procedural rigor without examining assumptions and advocate for intersectional regression models, specifically Multilevel Analysis of Individual Heterogeneity and Discriminant Analysis (MAIHDA) and Bayesian approaches. We also address challenges like missing data and model uncertainty through strategies like multiple imputation and compatibility intervals, enhancing methodological robustness, and ethical integrity. We introduce the concept of educational debts to shift the focus from individual deficits to systemic responsibilities, highlighting the practical and theoretical benefits of these approaches. Ultimately, this article guides researchers in using quantitative tools that acknowledge identity and power dynamics, aiming to foster more equitable scientific inquiry.more » « less
