Search

A study was conducted to implement the use of a standardized effect size and corresponding classification guidelines for polytomous data with the POLYSIBTEST procedure and compare those guidelines with prior recommendations. Two simulation studies were included. The first identifies new unstandardized test heuristics for classifying moderate and large differential item functioning (DIF) for polytomous response data with three to seven response options. These are provided for researchers studying polytomous data using POLYSIBTEST software that has been published previously. The second simulation study provides one pair of standardized effect size heuristics that can be employed with items having any number of response options and compares true-positive and false-positive rates for the standardized effect size proposed by Weese with one proposed by Zwick et al. and two unstandardized classification procedures (Gierl; Golia). All four procedures retained false-positive rates generally below the level of significance at both moderate and large DIF levels. However, Weese's standardized effect size was not affected by sample size and provided slightly higher true-positive rates than the Zwick et al. and Golia's recommendations, while flagging substantially fewer items that might be characterized as having negligible DIF when compared with Gierl's suggested criterion. The proposed effect size allows for easier use and interpretation by practitioners as it can be applied to items with any number of response options and is interpreted as a difference in standard deviation units.

A simulation study was conducted to investigate the heuristics of the SIBTEST procedure and how it compares with ETS classification guidelines used with the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Prior heuristics have been used for nearly 25 years, but they are based on a simulation study that was restricted due to computer limitations and that modeled item parameters from estimates of ACT and ASVAB tests from 1987 and 1984, respectively. Further, suggested heuristics for data fitting a two-parameter logistic model (2PL) have essentially went unused since their original presentation. This simulation study incorporates a wide range of data conditions to recommend heuristics for both 2PL and three-parameter logistic (3PL) data that correspond with ETS's Mantel-Haenszel heuristics. Levels of agreement between the new SIBTEST heuristics and Mantel-Haenszel heuristics were similar for 2PL data and higher than prior SIBTEST heuristics for 3PL data. The new recommendations provide higher true-positive rates for 2PL data. Conversely, they displayed decreased true-positive rates for 3PL data. False-positive rates, overall, remained below the level of significance for the new heuristics. Unequal group sizes resulted in slightly larger false-positive rates than balanced designs for both prior and new SIBTEST heuristics, with rates less than alpha levels for equal ability distributions and unbalanced designs versus false-positive rates slightly higher than alpha with unequal ability distributions and unbalanced designs.

"Pro‐life" and "pro‐choice" are closely associated with discussions about abortion; we refer to the extent that people identify with these terms as "abortion identity." Most polling measures present pro‐life and pro‐choice as mutually exclusive options, but there is a dearth of information about people who might simultaneously endorse both (or neither) labels. Method: We administered a survey to adults in the United States (n = 580) that included two different formats for participants to select their abortion identity: a categorical item with response options ranging from strongly pro‐choice to strongly pro‐life (and "both" and "neither") and two separate items (sliders) that asked people the extent to which they identify with each term. We asked participants endorsing both pro‐life and pro‐choice to some extent on the slider items to explain their responses in an open‐ended item. We used logistic regression to examine the relationship between participants' socio‐demographic characteristics and the likelihood of dual identification slider scores; we analyzed open‐ended data for content and themes. Results: On the sliders, more than 64% of participants identified as both pro‐life and pro‐choice to some extent. Variability existed between people's abortion identity on the close‐ended items and their response to the open‐ended questions. Among those with mixed abortion identities, participants described abortion as a serious and undesirable option but reflected positively on notions of personal choice and bodily autonomy. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate complexity in measuring people's endorsement of abortion identity labels. We recommend developing more nuanced and consistent measures to assess abortion attitudes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Existing criminology and victimization research suggests that youth victims of commercial sex often have mental health issues stemming from their sex victimization and/or emerging out of their long histories of family abuse, neglect and family conflict. However, what is not known is whether youth commercial sex victims, when compared to adjudicated delinquent, serious adolescent offenders, present unique mental health issues when they contact the juvenile justice system. We use the Pathways to Desistance longitudinal data that contains a sample of 1354 serious, adjudicated, juvenile offenders from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Phoenix, Arizona to address this question. According to our analyses, youths who had ever been paid for sex had significantly higher rates of several mental health disorders when compared to their high risk, adjudicated delinquent peers who had not engaged in commercial sex. We explain our findings concerning the potentially increased mental health diagnoses for youth commercial sex exploitation victims during and after their periods of adjudication., Author(s): Constance L. Chapple [sup.1] , Brandon L. Crawford [sup.2] Author Affiliations: (Aff1) grid.266900.b, 0000 0004 0447 0018, University of Oklahoma, , Norman, OK, USA (Aff2) grid.411017.2, 0000 0001 2151 [...]

Objective: Guided by the Reasoned Action Approach, we used a salient belief elicitation (SBE) to elicit participant‐generated beliefs regarding abortion. SBE is a formative research technique used to elicit people's control (i.e., perceived facilitators and barriers associated with a behavior), behavioral (i.e., perceived positive and negative consequences of doing a behavior), and normative (i.e., influence of important people/peers regarding a behavior) beliefs regarding a particular behavior (i.e., abortion). Methods: We administered our SBE to English‐ and Spanish‐speaking U.S. adults (N = 608) from NORC's AmeriSpeak® panel. We used inductive content and thematic analyses to assess open‐ended questions. Results: We found that participants' control and behavioral beliefs referenced circumstances used to assess abortion attitudes in polling item (e.g., rape) and reasons people seek abortion (e.g., financial reasons) as well as potential negative emotions (e.g., shame) and positive consequences (e.g., autonomy) associated with abortion. Participants indicated pregnant people's partners and people seeking abortion as salient referents. Conclusion: Participants mentioned several contexts reflected in common measures used to assess abortion attitudes by national polls and surveys. However, we also found other relevant circumstances not reflected in common measures and a range of salient referents. We recommend abortion attitudes measures account for these participant‐driven salient beliefs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines how Latinx migrant generation and the circumstances of abortion may be linked to attitudes toward abortion legality among a sample of U.S.‐Latinx adults. Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Multiple‐Indicators Multiple‐Causes modeling, we found that abortion attitudes across different migrant generations are sensitive to circumstances motivating the abortion. We did not find significant differences across migrant generations for generally more endorsed circumstances, such as when the woman's health is at risk or when the pregnancy occurs as a result of rape. However, second and third generations were more inclined to endorse legal abortion than first‐generation for generally less endorsed circumstances, such as low income, being unpartnered, not wanting (more) children, or contraception failure. The social context in which one is raised (i.e., the United States for migrants' descendants or the country of birth for the first‐generation migrants) plays a role in shaping abortion attitudes regarding the less endorsed social‐related circumstances but not for more endorsed circumstances. Further research should consider the inner heterogeneity of the Latinx population as well as the multiple contexts of abortion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we explore the use of a generative metaphor for analyzing qualitative interviews on abortion attitudes. U.S. abortion attitudes are notably complex and multidimensional, thus, requiring subtle, complex, and multidimensional tools of study. We used the generative metaphor of a "doorway" as an analytic tool to enable new understandings of abortion attitudes as expressed across 24 one-on-one semi-structured qualitative interviews with U.S. adults. The doorway metaphor gave us an understanding of the ways in which participants thought of their abortion attitudes as open to revision or change to some degree while also being closed to revision in other ways. This spectrum of openness and closedness does not come into view when examining abortion attitudes through the dichotomous framings. In this methodological paper, we thoroughly describe how we used the metaphor to explicate the complexities and multidimensionalities of a person's abortion attitudes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study a standardized effect size was created for use with the SIBTEST procedure. Using this standardized effect size, a single set of heuristics was developed that are appropriate for data fitting different item response models (e.g., 2-parameter logistic, 3-parameter logistic). The standardized effect size rescales the raw beta-uni value using a pooled variation that incorporates the beta-uni inclusion factor. Although the heuristics for the standardized and unstandardized effect sizes provide similar true-positive and false-positive rates in most conditions, the standardized effect size provides higher true-positive rates for conditions where item response variability is smaller in proportion to raw score differences. Inflated false-positive rates were solely impacted by smaller sample sizes, whereas larger sample sizes improved true-positive rates. An empirical application is provided to demonstrate how the standardized effect size provides for a more consistent comparison across items with varying response distributions. This study lays the foundation for the utilization of a standardized effect size for both dichotomous and polytomous item response models using the suite of SIBTEST procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A study was conducted to implement the use of a standardized effect size and corresponding classification guidelines for polytomous data with the POLYSIBTEST procedure and compare those guidelines with prior recommendations. Two simulation studies were included. The first identifies new unstandardized test heuristics for classifying moderate and large differential item functioning (DIF) for polytomous response data with three to seven response options. These are provided for researchers studying polytomous data using POLYSIBTEST software that has been published previously. The second simulation study provides one pair of standardized effect size heuristics that can be employed with items having any number of response options and compares true-positive and false-positive rates for the standardized effect size proposed by Weese with one proposed by Zwick et al. and two unstandardized classification procedures (Gierl; Golia). All four procedures retained false-positive rates generally below the level of significance at both moderate and large DIF levels. However, Weese's standardized effect size was not affected by sample size and provided slightly higher true-positive rates than the Zwick et al. and Golia's recommendations, while flagging substantially fewer items that might be characterized as having negligible DIF when compared with Gierl's suggested criterion. The proposed effect size allows for easier use and interpretation by practitioners as it can be applied to items with any number of response options and is interpreted as a difference in standard deviation units. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]