Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance

Structural Equation Modeling

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 464-504

  Chen, Fang Fang ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MATHEMATICAL MODELS; STATISTICAL METHODS;

FIT INDEXES; GOODNESS OF FIT; NONMONOTONIC; RESIDUAL VARIANCE; ROOT MEAN SQUARE; ROOT MEAN SQUARE ERRORS; SAMPLE SIZES; UNEQUAL SAMPLE SIZE;

MEAN SQUARE ERROR;

EID: 34548107817     PISSN: 10705511     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10705510701301834     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
2. Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations programmanual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.
3. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
4. Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (Eds.). (1983). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5. Brannick, M. T. (1995). Critical comments on applying covariance structure modeling. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 201-213.
6. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
7. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Byrne, B. M., & Campbell, T. L. (1999). Cross-cultural comparisons and the presumption of equivalent measurement and theoretical structure: A look beneath the surface. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 555-574.
9. Chen, F. F. (2007). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The Impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Manuscript under review.
10. Chen, F. F., Sousa, K. H., & West, S. G. (2005). Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 471-492.
11. Chen, F. F., & West, S. G. (in press). Measuring individualism and collectivism: The importance of considering different components, reference groups, and measurement invariance. Journal of Research in Personality.
12. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
13. Hendriks, A. J., Perugini, M., Angleitner, A., Ostendorf, F., Johnson, J. A., De-Fruyt, F., et al. (2003). The Five-Factor Personality Inventory: Cross-cultural generalizability across 13 countries. European Journal of Personality, 17, 347-373.
14. Horn, J. L., McArdle, J. J., & Mason, R. (1983). When is invariance not invariant: A practical scientist's look at the ethereal concept of factor invariance. Southern Psychologist, 4, 179-188.
15. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453.
16. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
17. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1999). USREL 8: User's reference guide (2nd ed.). Chicago: Scientific Software International.
18. Kaplan, D., & George, R. (1995). A study of the power associated with testing factor mean differences under violations of factorial invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 2, 101-118.
19. Kwan, V. S. Y., Bond, M. H., & Singelis, T. M. (1997). Pancultural explanations for life satisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1038-1051.
20. Little, T. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 53-76.
21. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K. T. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical properties. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 315-353). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis: Effects of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-411.
23. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu & Bender's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320-341.
24. McDonald, R. P. (1989). An index of goodness-of-fit based on noncentrality. Journal of Classification, 6, 97-103.
25. McDonald, R. P., & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 247-255.
26. Meade, A. W., & Lautenschlager, G. J. (2004). A Monte-Carlo study of confirmatory factor analytic tests of measurement equivalence/invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 60-72.
27. Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525-543.
28. Millsap, R. E., & Kwok, O.-M. (2004). Evaluating the impact of partial factorial invariance on selection of multiple populations. Psychological Methods, 9, 93-115.
29. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998). Mplus user's guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
30. Rhee, E., Uleman, J. S., & Lee, H. K. (1996). Variations in collectivism and individualism by ingroup and culture: Confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1037-1054.
31. Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78-90.
32. Steiger, J. H. (1989). EzPATH: A supplementary module for SYSTAT and SYGRAPH. Evanston, IL: SYSTAT.
33. Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173-180.
34. Steiger, J. H. (1998). A note on multiple sample extensions of the RMSEA fit index. Structural Equation Modeling, 5, 411-419.
35. Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980, May). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.
36. Tanaka, J. S. (1993). Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
37. Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10.
38. Ullman, J. B. (2001). Structural equation modeling. In B. G. Tabachnick & L. S. Fidell (Eds.), Using Multivariate Statistics (pp. 653-771). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
39. 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, 2, 4-69.
40. 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.