Back to results

University of Kansas

Selecting an Optimal Measurement Model and Detecting Differential Item Functioning Using Bayesian Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Abstract

dc:description.abstract

I investigated the sampling behavior of DIC and WAIC in the context of selecting an optimal measurement model in Bayesian SEM, as well as the utility of highly constrained parameter estimates in detecting differential item functioning (DIF). I assessed the relative efficiency of WAIC compared to DIC, evaluated analytical WAIC SEs by calculating relative bias, and reported how often WAIC and DIC indicated a preference for each invariance model. I compared the power and Type I error rates for DIF detection across conditions, and assessed the quality of estimates by calculating bias and 95% CI coverage rates for key parameters. Results indicate that although WAIC has less sampling variability than DIC, their model preferences are similar. Both WAIC and DIC have greater power to detect that invariance constraints are untenable than AIC in using maximum likelihood (ML) estimation. In tests of null hypotheses that DIF parameters are zero, Bayesian credible intervals and ML modification indices have similar power, but Bayesian credible intervals have much lower Type I error rates.

Degree

thesis:*
Grantor dc:publisher
University of Kansas
Year dc:date.issued
2015

Author and committee

dc:creator, dc:contributor.*
Author dc:creator
  • Jorgensen, Terrence Dale
Advisor dc:contributor.advisor
  • Wu, Wei

Subjects

dc:subject × 6

Rights

dc:rights
Statement dc:rights
  • Copyright held by the author.
Language dc:language.iso
en

Identifiers

dc:identifier.*
OAI identifier oai:identifier
oai:kuscholarworks.ku.edu:1808/19054

Chain of custody

source
Harvested from
University of Kansas
Base URL
kuscholarworks.ku.edu/server/oai/request
Last updated
2026-07-24
Source record
OAI-PMH GetRecord
citation

Jorgensen, Terrence Dale. Selecting an Optimal Measurement Model and Detecting Differential Item Functioning Using Bayesian Confirmatory Factor Analysis. University of Kansas, 2015. http://hdl.handle.net/1808/19054