Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Friedman Two-way Analysis of Variance by Ranks

Friedman Two-way Analysis of Variance by Ranks

Friedman's Two-Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks is a nonparametric test designed to identify differences across multiple test attempts when traditional assumptions of normality and equal variances do not apply. Unlike conventional ANOVA, which requires normally distributed data with equal variances, Friedman's test is ideal for ordinal or non-normally distributed data, making it particularly useful for analyzing dependent samples, such as matched subjects over time or repeated measures from...

Significance Testing: Overview

Significance Testing: Overview

Significance testing is a set of statistical methods used to test whether a claim about a parameter is valid. In analytical chemistry, significance testing is used primarily to determine whether the difference between two values comes from determinate or random errors. The effect of a particular change in the measurement protocol, analyst, or sample itself can cause a deviation from the expected result. In the case of a suspected deviation/outlier, we need to be able to confirm mathematically...

Two-Way ANOVA

Two-Way ANOVA

The two-way ANOVA is an extension of the one-way ANOVA. It is a statistical test performed on three or more samples categorized by two factors - a row factor and a column factor. Ronald Fischer mentioned it in 1925 in his book 'Statistical Methods for Researchers.'
The two-way ANOVA analysis initially begins by stating the null hypothesis that there is an interaction effect between the two factors of a dataset. This effect can be visualized using line segments formed by joining the means for...

One-Way ANOVA: Equal Sample Sizes

One-Way ANOVA: Equal Sample Sizes

One-Way ANOVA can be performed on three or more samples with equal or unequal sample sizes. When one-way ANOVA is performed on two datasets with samples of equal sizes, it can be easily observed that the computed F statistic is highly sensitive to the sample mean.
Different sample means can result in different values for the variance estimate: variance between samples. This is because the variance between samples is calculated as the product of the sample size and the variance between the...

One-Way ANOVA

One-Way ANOVA

One-way ANOVA analyzes more than three samples categorized by one factor. For example, it can compare the average mileage of sports bikes. Here, the data is categorized by one factor - the company. However, one-way ANOVA cannot be used to simultaneously compare the sample mean of three or more samples categorized by two factors. An example of two factors would be sports bikes from different companies driven in different terrains, such as a desert or snowy landscape. Here, two-way ANOVA is used...

F Distribution

F Distribution

The F distribution was named after Sir Ronald Fisher, an English statistician. The F statistic is a ratio (a fraction) with two sets of degrees of freedom; one for the numerator and one for the denominator. The F distribution is derived from the Student's t distribution. The values of the F distribution are squares of the corresponding values of the t distribution. One-Way ANOVA expands the t test for comparing more than two groups. The scope of that derivation is beyond the level of this...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Comparison of the EORTC QLQ-EN24, FACT-En, and FEnSI-23 for assessing quality of life in endometrial cancer: a systematic review.

Current opinion in supportive and palliative care·2026

Same author

Psychosocial factors and the risk of cancer: An individual-participant data meta-analysis.

Cancer·2026

Same author

Death Anxiety During the Last Year of Life in Patients With Advanced Cancer: Longitudinal Results From the eQuiPe Study.

Psycho-oncology·2026

Same author

Patients' and relatives' perspectives on the quality of end-of-Life care in advanced cancer: From the final months to bereavement.

PloS one·2026

Same author

Comparison of the EORTC QLQ PR25 and the FACT-P for assessing quality of life in patients with prostate cancer - an updated literature review.

Current opinion in supportive and palliative care·2026

Same author

Comparing FACIT-fatigue and EORTC QLQ-FA12 for assessing the quality of life in people with cancer-related fatigue.

Current opinion in supportive and palliative care·2025

Same journal

The economic burden of MASH: comparison of healthcare resource utilization and costs in patients with probable MASH, without MASH, and with diagnosed MASH.

Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research·2026

Same journal

Comparative landscape of artificial intelligence-assisted systematic literature reviews.

Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research·2026

Same journal

Single versus multiple inhaler triple therapy in COPD using data from the pragmatic INTREPID trial: cost-effectiveness analysis from the Chilean public healthcare system perspective.

Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research·2026

Same journal

Real-world direct medical costs and resource utilization of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced NSCLC with COPD: a multicenter cost-consequence analysis from Iraq.

Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research·2026

Same journal

TENS in chronic pain management: a 11-year nationwide analysis using the French National Health Data System.

Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research·2026

Same journal

Economic burden of breast cancer in Cyprus from a societal perspective.

Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research·2026

See all related articles

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 12, 2026

Advancing Dyslexia Assessment in Children Through Computerized Testing

Advancing Dyslexia Assessment in Children Through Computerized Testing

Published on: August 16, 2024

Interpretation of differential item functioning analyses using external review.

Neil W Scott¹, Peter M Fayers, Neil K Aaronson

¹Section of Population Health, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK. n.w.scott@abdn.ac.uk

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research

|June 16, 2010

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

External reviews can help explain differential item functioning (DIF) in surveys. This study reviewed literature and presented a case study on using blinded reviewers to interpret DIF results, especially for health-related quality of life instruments.

More Related Videos

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits

Published on: September 27, 2019

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 12, 2026

Advancing Dyslexia Assessment in Children Through Computerized Testing

Advancing Dyslexia Assessment in Children Through Computerized Testing

Published on: August 16, 2024

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits

Published on: September 27, 2019

Area of Science:

Psychometrics
Health Services Research
Educational Measurement

Background:

Differential item functioning (DIF) analyses identify item bias but not its cause.
External reviews, particularly blinded ones, are used to interpret DIF findings.
Existing literature on external reviews alongside DIF is limited, especially for health instruments.

Purpose of the Study:

To review the current use of external item reviews in conjunction with DIF analyses.
To describe a case study employing blinded bilingual reviewers for translation DIF analysis.
To highlight the utility of external reviews for interpreting DIF in health-related quality of life instruments.

Main Methods:

Literature review focusing on DIF and external item reviews, with emphasis on health-related quality of life instruments.
Case study involving blinded bilingual reviewers for translation DIF analysis of a health instrument.

Main Results:

Few studies utilize blinded external item reviews; most identified examples are from educational research.
The case study demonstrated the feasibility and value of using blinded bilingual reviewers to interpret translation DIF.
External reviews provide crucial context for understanding the reasons behind DIF.

Conclusions:

External item reviews, especially blinded reviews, are valuable for interpreting DIF results.
Integrating external reviews with DIF analyses enhances the understanding of item bias.
Further research should incorporate external reviews alongside DIF analyses, particularly in health outcomes research.