Evaluating the Impact of Partial Factorial Invariance on Selection in Two Populations

Psychological Methods

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 93-115

  Millsap, Roger E ^a   Kwok, Oi Man ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; HUMAN; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOLOGY; STATISTICS;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PSYCHOLOGY;

EID: 1942507439     PISSN: 1082989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/1082-989X.9.1.93     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Babakus, E., Ferguson, C. E., & Jöreskog, K. G. (1987). The sensitivity of confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis to violations of measurement scale and distributional assumptions. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 72-141.
2. Bernstein, I. H., & Teng, G. (1989). Factoring items and factoring scales are different: Spurious evidence for multidimensionality due to item categorization. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 467-477.
3. Browne, M. W., & Arminger, G. (1995). Specification and estimation of mean and covariance structure models. In G. Arminger, C. C. Clogg, & M. E. Sobel (Eds.), Handbook of statistical modeling for the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 185-249). New York: Plenum Press.
4. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456-466.
5. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1998). Cross-cultural comparisons using non-invariant measurement items. Applied Behavioral Science Review, 6, 93-110.
6. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups: A reconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal of Management, 25, 1-27.
7. Everson, H., Millsap, R. E., & Rodriguez, C. M. (1991). Isolating gender differences in test anxiety: A confirmatory factor analysis of the Test Anxiety Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 243-251.
8. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272-299.
9. Green, S. B., & Babyak, M. A. (1997). Control of Type I error with multiple tests of constraints in structural equation modeling. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 39-52.
10. Green, S. B., Thompson, M. S., & Babyak, M. A. (1998). A Monte Carlo investigation of methods for controlling Type I errors with specification searches in structural equation modeling. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 365-383.
11. Grice, J. W. (2001). Computing and evaluating factor scores. Psychological Methods, 6, 430-450.
12. Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129-145). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Holst, E., Jorgensen, K. B., & Natolski, I. (2001). BIVAR (Version 1.c). Copenhagen, Denmark: Arbejclsmijein-stuttet.
14. Horn, J. L., & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research. 18, 117-144.
15. Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36, 409-426.
16. Jöreskog, K. G. (2000). Latent variable scores and their uses. Retrieved May 1, 2003, from Scientific Software International Web site: www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/column6.htm
17. Jöreskog, K. G., & Moustaki, I. (2001). Factor analysis of ordinal variables: A comparison of three approaches. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 347-387.
18. Kaplan, D. (1989). The problem of error rate inflation in covariance structure models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 333-337.
19. Kraemer, H. C. (1992). Evaluating medical tests: Objective and quantitative guidelines. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
20. MacCallum, R. C. (1986). Specification searches in covariance structure modeling. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 107-120.
21. MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 490-504.
22. Mathsoft. (1999). S-PLUS 2000 [Computer software and manual]. Seattle, W A: Mathsoft.
23. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis, and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525-543.
25. Meredith, W., & Millsap, R. E. (1992). On the misuse of manifest variables in the detection of measurement bias. Psychometrika, 57, 289-311.
26. Millsap, R. E. (1997). Invariance in measurement and prediction: Their relationship in the single-factor case. Psychological Methods, 2, 248-260.
27. Millsap, R. E., & Everson, H. T. (1993). Methodology review: Statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 297-334.
28. Muthén, B. O., & Christoffersson, A. (1981). Simultaneous factor analysis of dichotomous variables in several groups. Psychometrika, 46, 407-419.
29. Olsson, U. H. (1979). On the robustness of factor analysis against crude classification of the observations. Multi-variate Behavioral Research, 14, 485-500.
30. Dort, F. J. (1998). Simulation study of item bias detection with restricted factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 5, 107-124.
31. Raju, N. A., Van der Linden, W., & Fleer, P. (1995). An IRT-based internal measure of test bias with applications for differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 353-368.
32. Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 552-566.
33. Rigdon, E. E., & Ferguson, C. E. (1991). The performance of the polychoric correlation coefficient and selected fitting functions in confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 491-497.
34. Roussos, L. A., & Stout, W. F. (1996). Simulation studies of the effects of small sample size and studied item parameters on SIBTEST and Mantel-Haenszel Type I error performance. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 215-230.
35. Spielberger, C. D., Gonzalez, H. P., Taylor, C. J., Anton, W. D., Algaze, B., Ross, G. R., & Westberry, L. G. (1980). Preliminary professional manual for the Test Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
36. Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78-90.
37. Swets, J. A., & Pickett, R. M. (1982). Evaluation of diagnostic systems: Methods from signal detection theory. New York: Academic Press.
38. Uebersax, J. S. (1988). Validity inferences from interob-server agreement. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 405-416.
39. Uttaro, T., & Millsap, R. E. (1994). Factors influencing the Mantel-Haenszel procedure in the detection of differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 15-25.
40. Van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
41. Vandenberg, R. J. (2002). Toward a fuller understanding of and improvement in measurement invariance methods and procedures. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 139-158.
42. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4-69.
43. Widaman, K. F., & Reise, S. P. (1997). Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: Applications in the substance use domain. In K. J. Bryant, M. Windle, & S. G. West (Eds.), The science of prevention: Methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research (pp. 281-324). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.