Using Hierarchical Generalized Linear Modeling to Examine Contextual Differential Item Functioning: A Validity Study of Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale

Jing Zhao (Old Dominion University)
Xiaojing Zou (Beijing Normal University)
Wenpeng Shang (Jinan University)


The purpose of the study was to further investigate the validity of the instrument used for collecting preservice teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy adapting the three-level hierarchical generalized linear modeling (HGLM) model. To serve the purpose, the study used data collected by the research team which elicited preservices teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs using Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES). Hierarchical generalized linear modeling (HGLM) were used to analyze the data. Results of the HGLM analyses (at level-two) showed that one item in the scale displayed gender DIF. Another item became DIF item when the context variable was added to the level-two model. However, the effect of the context on the DIF item was not big.


HGLM, Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale, DIF

Full Text:



[1] Anderson, L. M., Reilly, E. E , Gorrell, S., Schaumberg, K., & Anderson, D. A. (2016). Gender-based differential item function for the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 92, 87-91.

[2] Angoff, W. H. (1993). Perspectives on differential item functioning methodology. In P.W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 3-24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[3] Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.

[4] Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. Bollen and J. Long (Eds), Testing structural equation modeling (pp.136–62). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

[5] Cheong, Y. F. (2006). Analysis of school context effects on differential item functioning using hierarchical generalized linear models. International Journal of Testing, 6, 57-79.

[6] Drasgow, F. (1987). Study of the measurement bias of two standardized psychological tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 19-29.

[7] Gülten, D. Ç. (2013). An investigation of pre-service primary mathematics teachers’ math literacy self-efficacy beliefs in terms of certain variables. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5 (2), 293-408.

[8] Henry, G.T., Thompson, C.L., Bastian, K.C., Fortner, C.K., Kershaw, D.C., Purtell, K.M., & Zulli, R.A. (2011). Does teacher preparation affect student achievement?

[9] Manuscripts submitted for Education Finance and Policy.

[10] Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis:Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

[11] Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (2004). LISREL 8.7. Scientific Software International, Inc., 1981-2004, IL, U.S.A.

[12] Kamata, A. (2001). Item analysis by the hierarchical generalized linear model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 79-93.

[13] Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

[14] Lin, P.Y., Childs, R.A., & Lin, YC (2016). Untangling complex effects of disabilities and accommodations within a multilevel IRT framework. Quality & Quantity, 50, 2767-2788.

[15] Liu, J. (2008). A comparison of teacher candidates and first-year teachers by gender and licensure level, in terms of their perceptions of preparation program quality, efficacy beliefs, and concerns about teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, USA.

[16] Maller, S. J. (2001). Differential item functioning in the WISC-III: Item parameters for boys and girls in the national standardization sample. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 793-817.

[17] Muola, J.M. (2010). A study of the relationship between academic achievement motivation and home environment among standard eight pupils. Educational Research and Reviews, 5 (5), 213-217.

[18] Murray, A. L., Booth, T., & Mckenzie, K. (2015). An analysis of differential item functioning by gender in the Learning Disability Screening Questionnaire (LDSQ). Research in Developmental Disabilities, 39, 76-82.

[19] Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R., du Toit, M. (2004). HLM 6:Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International.

[20] Rosas, C. & West, M. (2011). Pre-service teachers’ perception and beliefs of readiness to teach mathematics. Current Issues in Education, 14(1). Retrieved from

[21] Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

[22] Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.

[23] Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.

[24] Williams, N.J., & Beretvas, S. N. (2006). DIF identification using HGLM for polytomous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30, 22-42.

[25] Yin, P., & Fan, X. (2003). Assessing the factor structure invariance of self-concept measurement across ethnic and gender groups: Findings from a national sample. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(2), 296–318.



  • There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright © 2019 Jing Zhao

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.