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)

Article ID: 395


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.