Comparing groups on latent variables: A structural equation modeling approach

Work

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 429-436

  Dimitrov, Dimiter M ^a  

^a GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Confirmatory factor analysis; Latent variable modeling; Structural equation modeling

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATHEMATICAL VARIABLE; METHODOLOGY; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; PSYCHOSOCIAL DISORDER; QUESTIONNAIRE; REHABILITATION RESEARCH; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING; WORKPLACE;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; POPULATION GROUPS; REHABILITATION, VOCATIONAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33745200526     PISSN: 10519815     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. L.S. Aiken, J.A. Stein and P.M. Bentler, Structural equation analyses of clinical subpopulation differences and comparative treatment outcomes: Characterizing the daily lives of drug addicts, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994), 488-499.
2. P.M. Bentler, EQS: Structural Equations Program Manual, Multivariate Software, Encino, CA, 2004.
3. K.A. Bollen, Structural Equations with Latent Variables, John Wiley, NY, 1989.
4. M.W. Browne and R. Cudeck, Alternative ways of assessing model fit, in: Testing Structural Equation Models, K.A. Bollen and J.S. Long, eds, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1993, pp. 136-162.
5. B.M. Byrne, Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: A road less traveled, Structural Equation Modeling 11 (2004), 272-300.
6. B.M. Byrne, R.J. Shavelson and B. Muthén, Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance, Psychological Bulletin 105 (1989), 456-466.
7. B.M. Byrne, Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2001.
8. D.M. Dimitrov and P.D. Rumrill, Multivariate methods in rehabilitation, WORK 24 (2005), 205-212.
9. G.R. Hancock, Structural equation modeling methods of hypothesis testing of latent variable means, Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 30 (1997), 91-105.
10. P.W. Holland and H. Wainer, Differential Item Functioning, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1993.
11. L. Hu and P.M. Bentler, Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling 6 (1999), 1-55.
12. K.G. Jöreskog and D. Sörbom, LISREL's Reference Guide, Scientific Software, Inc, Chicago, 1989.
13. R. Karasek and T. Theorell, Healthy Work, Stress, Productivity and the Reconstruction of Working Ldfe, Basic Books, New York, 1990.
14. D.W. Levine, R.M. Kaplan, D.F. Kripke, D.J. Bowen, M.J. Naughton and S.A. Shumaker, Factor structure and measurement invariance of the women's health initiative insomnia rating scale, Psychological Assessment 15 (2003), 123-136.
15. L.L. Mangione and T.W. Mangione, Workgroup context and the experience of abuse: An opportunity for prevention, WORK 16 (2001), 259-267.
16. W. Meredith, Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance, Psychometrika 58 (1993), 525-543.
17. L.K. Muthén and B.O. Muthén, Mplus: Statistical Analysis with Latent Variables, User's Guide, Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, CA, 2003.
18. R. Roessler, P. Rumrill and M. Hennessey, Employment Concerns of People with Multiple Sclerosis: Building a National Employment Agenda, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, New York.
19. K.H. Sousa and F.F. Chen, Latent mean structure analysis: A technique to compare group differences in a second-order quality of life model, Journal of Nursing Measurement 11 (2003), 253-266.
20. C.E. Werts, D.A. Rock, R.L. Linn and K.G. Jöreskog, Comparison of correlations, variances, covariances, and regression weights with and without measurement error, Psychological Bulletin 83, 1007-1013.
21. K.F. Widman and S.P. Reise, Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: Applications in the substance use domain, in: The Science of Prevention: Methodological Advances from Alcohol and Substance Abuse Research, K.J. Bryant, M. Windle and S.G. West, eds, American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.,1997, pp. 281-324.
22. R.M. Williams, G. Sundelin and M.L. Schmuck, Reliability of the demand-control questionnaire for sewing machine operators, WORK 16 (2001), 71-75.