An essay on measurement and factorial invariance

Medical Care

Volumn 44, Issue 11 SUPPL. 3, 2006, Pages

  Meredith, William ^a   Teresi, Jeanne A ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b NEW YORK STATE PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

Author keywords

Differential item functioning; Factorial invariance; Fairness and equity; Item response theory; Measurement invariance

Indexed keywords

EPIDEMIOLOGY; ETHNIC GROUP; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; METHODOLOGY; NOMENCLATURE; PSYCHOMETRY; REVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA COLLECTION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; ETHNIC GROUPS; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; PSYCHOMETRICS; TERMINOLOGY;

EID: 33750298457     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000245438.73837.89     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Gregorich SE. Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Med Care. 2006;44(Suppl 3):S78-S94.
2. Dorans NJ, Kulick E. Differential item functioning on the Mini-Mental State Examination: an application of the Mantel-Haenszel and standardization procedures. Med Care. 2006;44(Suppl 3):S107-S114.
3. Crane PK, Gibbons LE, Jolley L, et al. Differential item functioning analysis with ordinal logistic regression techniques: DIFdetect and difwithpar. Med Care. 2006;44(Suppl 3):S115-S123.
4. Jones RN. Identification of measurement differences between English and Spanish language versions of the Mini-Mental State Examination: detecting differential item functioning using MIMIC modeling. Med Care. 2006;44(Suppl 3):S124-S133.
5. Edelen Orlando M, Thissen D, Teresi JA, et al. Identification of differential item functioning using item response theory and the likelihood-based model comparison approach: application to the Mini-Mental State Examination. Med Care. 2006;44(Suppl 3):S134-S142.
6. Morales LS, Flowers C, Gutierrez P, et al. Item and scale differential functioning of the Mini-Mental State Examination assessed using the differential item and test functioning (DFIT) framework. Med Care. 2006;44(Suppl 3):S143-S151.
7. Lord FM, Novick MR. Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1968.
8. McDonald RP. Factor Analysis and Related Methods. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1985.
9. Meredith W. Factorial Invariance Revisited. Saul B. Sells address to the Society for Multivariate Experimental Psychology; October 1997; Mahwah, NJ.
10. Meredith W. Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika. 1993;58:525-543.
11. Meredith W, Horn J. The role of factorial invariance in modeling growth and change. In: Collins LM, Sayer AG, eds. New Methods for the Analysis of Change. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2001.
12. Muthén BO. Factor structure in groups selected on observed scores. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1989;42.
13. Byrne BM, Shavelson RJ, Muthen B. Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: the issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychol Bull. 1989;105:456-466.
14. Lubke GH, Dolan CV. Can unequal residual variances across groups mask differences in residual means in the common factor model? Structural Equation Modeling. 2003;10:175-192.
15. Mellenbergh GJ. Item bias and item response theory. International Journal of Educational Research. 1989;13:127-143.
16. Christoffersson A. Factor analysis of dichotomized variables. Psychometrika. 1975;40:5-32.
17. Holland PW, Thayer DT. Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In: Wainer H, Braun HI, eds. Test Validity. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.
18. Zwick R. When do item response function and Mantel-Haenszel definitions of differential item functioning coincide? Journal of Educational Statistics. 1990;15:185-197.
19. Lubke GH, Muthen BO. Applying multigroup confirmatory factor models for continuous outcomes to Likert scale data complicates meaningful group comparisons. Structural Equation Modeling. 2004;11:514-534.
20. Muthén BO. A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical, and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika. 1984;49:115-132.
21. Muthén B. Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations. Psychometrika. 1989;54:557-585.
22. Muthén BO, Christofferson A. Simultaneous factor analysis of dichotomous variables in several groups. Psychometrika. 1981;46:407-419.
23. Gregory K. A Reconsideration of Bias in Employment Testing From the Perspective of Factorial Invariance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley; 1991.
24. Millsap R, Meredith W. Inferential conditions in the statistical detection of measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement. 1992;16.
25. Millsap R, Meredith W. Statistical evidence in salary discrimination studies: nonparametric inferential conditions. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1994;29.
26. Guttman L. The determinacy of factor score matrices with implications for five basic problems common factor theory. British Journal of Statistical Psychology. 1955;8:65-81.