Search for: All records

Abstract Establishing the invariance property of an instrument (e.g., a questionnaire or test) is a key step for establishing its measurement validity. Measurement invariance is typically assessed by differential item functioning (DIF) analysis, i.e., detecting DIF items whose response distribution depends not only on the latent trait measured by the instrument but also on the group membership. DIF analysis is confounded by the group difference in the latent trait distributions. Many DIF analyses require knowing several anchor items that are DIF-free in order to draw inferences on whether each of the rest is a DIF item, where the anchor items are used to identify the latent trait distributions. When no prior information on anchor items is available, or some anchor items are misspecified, item purification methods and regularized estimation methods can be used. The former iteratively purifies the anchor set by a stepwise model selection procedure, and the latter selects the DIF-free items by a LASSO-type regularization approach. Unfortunately, unlike the methods based on a correctly specified anchor set, these methods are not guaranteed to provide valid statistical inference (e.g., confidence intervals andp-values). In this paper, we propose a new method for DIF analysis under a multiple indicators and multiple causes (MIMIC) model for DIF. This method adopts a minimal$$L_1$$ $L_1$norm condition for identifying the latent trait distributions. Without requiring prior knowledge about an anchor set, it can accurately estimate the DIF effects of individual items and further draw valid statistical inferences for quantifying the uncertainty. Specifically, the inference results allow us to control the type-I error for DIF detection, which may not be possible with item purification and regularized estimation methods. We conduct simulation studies to evaluate the performance of the proposed method and compare it with the anchor-set-based likelihood ratio test approach and the LASSO approach. The proposed method is applied to analysing the three personality scales of the Eysenck personality questionnaire-revised (EPQ-R). 

When releasing data to the public, a vital concern is the risk of exposing personal information of the individuals who have contributed to the data set. Many mechanisms have been proposed to protect individual privacy, though less attention has been dedicated to practically conducting valid inferences on the altered privacy-protected data sets. For frequency tables, the privacy-protection-oriented perturbations often lead to negative cell counts. Releasing such tables can undermine users’ confidence in the usefulness of such data sets. This paper focuses on releasing one-way frequency tables. We recommend an optimal mechanism that satisfies ϵ-differential privacy (DP) without suffering from having negative cell counts. The procedure is optimal in the sense that the expected utility is maximized under a given privacy constraint. Valid inference procedures for testing goodness-of-fit are also developed for the DP privacy-protected data. In particular, we propose a de-biased test statistic for the optimal procedure and derive its asymptotic distribution. In addition, we also introduce testing procedures for the commonly used Laplace and Gaussian mechanisms, which provide a good finite sample approximation for the null distributions. Moreover, the decaying rate requirements for the privacy regime are provided for the inference procedures to be valid. We further consider common users’ practices such as merging related or neighboring cells or integrating statistical information obtained across different data sources and derive valid testing procedures when these operations occur. Simulation studies show that our inference results hold well even when the sample size is relatively small. Comparisons with the current field standards, including the Laplace, the Gaussian (both with/without post-processing of replacing negative cell counts with zeros), and the Binomial-Beta McClure-Reiter mechanisms, are carried out. In the end, we apply our method to the National Center for Early Development and Learning’s (NCEDL) multi-state studies data to demonstrate its practical applicability.