Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process

Psicothema

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 872-882

  Byrne, Barbara M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CULTURAL FACTOR; ETHNOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; NIGERIA; QUESTIONNAIRE; SELF CONCEPT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AUSTRALIA; CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; NIGERIA; QUESTIONNAIRES; SELF CONCEPT;

EID: 55449084838     PISSN: 02149915     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Arbuckle, J.L. (1996). Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In G.A. Marcoulides & R.E. Schumacker (Eds.): Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 243-277). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psy chological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
3. Bentler, P.M. (2005). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software (www.mvsoft.com).
4. Boomsma, A., & Hoogland, J.J. (2001). The robustness of LISREL modeling revisited. In R. Cudeck, S. du Toit, & D. Sörbom (Eds.): Structural equation modeling: A festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskög. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software.
5. 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.
6. Byme, B.M. (1988). The Self Description Questionnaire III: Testing for equivalent factorial validity across ability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 397-406.
7. Byme, B.M. (1996). Measuring self-concept across the lifespan: Issues and instrumentation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
8. Byrne, B.M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LlSREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. nd edition) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Byrne, B.M., & Shavelson, R.J. (1987). Adolescent self concept: Testing the assumption of equivalent structure across gender. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 365-385.
12. Byrne, B.M., Shavelson, R.J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement equivalence. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456-466.
13. Byrne, B.M., & Stewart, S.M. (2006). The MACS approach to testing for multigroup invariance of a second-order structure: A walk through the process. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 287-321.
14. Byrne, B.M., & Watkins, D. (2003). The issue of measurement equivalence revisited. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 34, 155-175.
15. Cheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R.B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
16. Curran, P.J., West. S.G., & Finch, J.F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16-29.
17. DeCarlo, L.T. (1997). On the meaning and use of kurtosis. Psychological Methods, 2, 292-307.
18. Hambleton, R., Merenda, P., & Spielberger, C. (Eds.) (2005). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Horn, J.L., & McArdle, J.J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement equivalence in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18, 117-144.
20. Hu, L-T, & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in convariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
21. Jöreskog, K.G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36, 409-426.
22. Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
23. Kaplan, D. (1995). Statistical power in structural equation modeling. In Hoyle, R.H. (Ed.): Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 100-117), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24. Little, T.D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 53-76.
25. Marsh, H. W. (1992). Self Description Questionnaire (SDQ) I: A theoretical and empirical basis for the measurement of multiple dimensions of preadolescent self-concept: A test manual and research monograph. Macarthur, New South Wales, Australia: Faculty of Education, University of Western Sydney.
26. 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 and Bentler's findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320-341.
27. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P.M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C.C. Clogg (Eds.): Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399-419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28. Steiger, J.H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173-180.
29. van de Vijver, F.J.R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
30. Vandenberg, R.J., & Lance, C.E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement equivalence literature: Suggestions, practices and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4-70.
31. Wells, L.E., & Marwell, G. (1976). Self-esteem: Its conceptualization and measurement. Beverly Hills: Sage.
32. Widaman, K.F., & Reise, S.P. (1997). Exploring the measurement equivalence of psychological instruments: Applications in the substance use domain. In K.J. Bryant, M. Windle, & S.G. West (Eds.): The science of prevention (pp. 281-324). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.