Interpreting the results of studies using latent variable models to assess data quality: An empirical example using confirmatory factor analysis

Quality and Quantity

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 483-497

  Carle, Adam C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Confirmatory factor analysis; Data quality; Differential item functioning; Latent variable models; Survey methods

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951256346     PISSN: 00335177     EISSN: 15737845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11135-009-9220-4     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Adcock R., Collier D.: Measurement validity: a shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 95, 529-546 (2001).
2. Alexander, C. H.: Still rolling: Leslie Kish's "rolling samples" and the American Community Survey. In: Proceedings of the Statistics Canada Symposium 2001: Achieving Data Quality in a Statistical Agency, A Methodological Perspective, Ottawa, Canada (2001).
3. Bartholomew D. J.: Factor analysis for categorical data. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 42, 293-321 (1980).
4. Bartholomew D. J.: Scaling binary data using a factor model. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 46, 120-123 (1984).
5. Bernstein I. H., Teng G.: Factoring items and factoring scales are different: evidence for multidimensionality due to item categorization. Psychol. Bull. 105, 465-477 (1989).
6. Biemer P. P., Brown G.: Model-based estimation of drug use prevalence using item count data. J. Off. Stat. 21, 287-308 (2005).
7. Biemer P. P., Lyberg L. E.: Introduction to Survey Quality. Wiley, Hoboken (2003).
8. Biemer P. P., Stokes S.: Approaches to the modeling of measurement errors in surveys. In: Biemer, P. P., Lyberg, L. E., Massey, J. T., Nicholls, W. L. III, Waksberg, J. (eds) Measurement Errors in Surveys, Wiley, New York (1991).
9. Biemer P. P., Wiesen C.: Measurement error evaluation of self-reported drug use: a latent class analysis of the US National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A (Stat. Soc.) 165, 97-119 (2002).
10. Biemer, P. P., Groves, R. M., Lyberg, L. E., Mathiowetz, N. A., Sudman, S. (eds.): Measurement Error in Surveys. Wiley, New York (1991).
11. Bollen K. A.: Structural Equations with Latent Variables. Wiley, New York (1989).
12. Byrne B.: Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic Applications and Programs. Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey (1998).
13. Byrne B. M., Baron P.: The Beck Depression Inventory: testing and cross-validating a hierarchical factor structure for nonclinical adolescents. Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev. 26, 164-178 (1993).
14. Byrne B. M., Campbell T. L.: Cross-cultural omparisons and the presumption of equivalent measurement and theoretical structure: a look beneath the surface. J. Cult. Psychol. 30, 555-574 (1999).
15. Byrne B. M., Baron P., Campbell T. L.: Measuring adolescent depression: factorial validity and invariance of the Beck Depression Inventory across gender. J. Res. Adolesc. 3, 127-143 (1993).
16. Byrne B. M., Baron P., Campbell T. L.: The Beck Depression Inventory French version: testing for gender-invariant factorial structure for nonclinical adolescents. J. Adolesc. Res. 9, 166-179 (1994).
17. Byrne B. M., Baron P., Baley J.: The Beck Depression Inventory: testing for its factorial validity and invariance across gender for Bulgarian non-clinical adolescents. Pers. Individ. Dif. 21, 641-651 (1996).
18. Byrne B. M., Baron P., Baley J.: The Beck Depression Inventory: a cross-validated test of second-order factorial structure for Bulgarian adolescents. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 58, 241-251 (1998).
19. Carle, A. C.: Measurement invariance, sample size, and the chi-square difference test: a Monte Carlo based method for determining minimum sample size. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association (2005).
20. Cheung G. W., Rensvold R. B.: Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. 9, 233-255 (2002).
21. Christoffersson A.: Factor analysis of dichotomized variables. Psychometrika 40, 5-32 (1975).
22. Clogg C. C., Goodman L. A.: Simultaneous latent structure analysis in several groups. In: Tuma, N. B. (eds) Sociological Methodology, Josey-Bass, San Francisco (1985).
23. Cole S. R.: Assessment of differential item functioning in the perceived stress scale-10. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 53, 319-320 (1999).
24. Cole D. A., Martin J. M., Peeke L., Henderson A., Harwell J.: Validation of depression and anxiety measures in White and Black youths: multitrait-multimethod analyses. Psychol. Assess. 10, 261-276 (1998).
25. Fuller W. A.: Measurement Error Models. Wiley, New York (1987).
26. Gallo J. J., James A. C., Muthén B. O.: Age differences in the symptoms of depression: a latent trait analysis. J. Gerontol. 49, 251-264 (1994).
27. Hu L.-T., Bentler P. M.: Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol. Methods 3, 424-453 (1998).
28. Huang C. D., Church A. T., Katigbak M. S.: Identifying cultural differences in items and traits: differential item functioning in the NEO Personality Inventory. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 28, 192-218 (1997).
29. Jöreskog K. G.: Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika 36, 409-426 (1971).
30. Jöreskog K. J.: New developments in LISREL: analysis of ordinal variables using polychoric and weighted least squares. Qual. Quant. 24, 387-404 (1990).
31. Kish L.: Space/time variation and rolling samples. J. Off. Stat. 14, 31-46 (1998).
32. Knight G. P., Hill N. E.: Measurement equivalence in research involving adolescents. In: McLoyd, V. C., Steinberg, L. (eds) Studying Minority Adolescents: Conceptual, Methodological, and Health Issues, Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey (1998).
33. Knight G., Yun-Tein J., Shell R., Roosa M.: The cross-ethnic equivalence of parenting and family interaction measures among Hispanic and Anglo-American families. Child Dev. 63, 1392-1403 (1992).
34. McDonald R. P.: Test Theory: A Unified Treatment. Erlbaum, Mahwah (1999).
35. McGovern, P. D.: Quality Assessment of Data Collected in the American Community Survey from Households with Low English Proficiency. U. S. Census Bureau, Statistical Research Division, Research Report, Series 2004-01, Washington, DC (2004).
36. Mellenbergh G. J.: Item bias and item response theory. Int. J. Educ. Res. 13, 127-143 (1989).
37. Meredith W.: Rotation to achieve factorial invariance. Psychometrika 29, 187-206 (1964a).
38. Meredith W.: Notes on factorial invariance. Psychometrika 29, 177-185 (1964b).
39. Meredith W.: Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika 58, 525-543 (1993).
40. Millsap R. E., Everson H.: Confirmatory measurement model comparisons using latent means. Multivariate Behav. Res. 26, 479-494 (1991).
41. Millsap R. E., Yun-Tein J.: Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. J. Multivariate Behav. Res. 39, 479-515 (2004).
42. Mislevy R. J.: Recent developments in the factor analysis of categorical variables. J. Educ. Stat. 11, 3-31 (1986).
43. Muthén B. O.: Contributions to factor analysis of dichotomized variables. Psychometrika 43, 551-560 (1978).
44. Muthén B. O.: A general structure equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika 49, 115-132 (1984).
45. Muthén B. O.: Beyond SEM: general latent variable modeling. Behaviormetrika 29(1), 81-117 (2002).
46. Muthén B. O., Christoffersson A.: Simultaneous factor analysis of dichotomous variables in several populations. Psychometrika 46, 407-419 (1981).
47. Muthén, L. K., Muthén, B. O.: Mplus User's Guide. Muthén and Muthén, Los Angeles (2002/2004).
48. Pentz M. A., Chou C.-P.: Measurement invariance in longitudinal clinical research assuming change from development and intervention. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 62, 450-462 (1994).
49. Prelow H., Yun-Tein J., Roosa M. W., Wood J.: Do coping styles differ across sociocultural groups? The role of measurement equivalence in making this judgment. Am. J. Community Psychol. 28, 225-244 (2000).
50. Presser S., Rothgeb J. M., Couper M. P., Lessler J. L., Martin E., Martin J., Singer E.: Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires. Wiley, New York (2004).
51. Reid R., DuPaul G. J., Power T. J., Anastopoulos A. D., Rogers-Adkinson D., Noll M.-B., Riccio C.: Assessing culturally different students for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder using behavior rating scales. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 26, 187-198 (1998).
52. Schafer J., Caetano R.: The DSM-IV construct of cocaine dependence in a treatment sample of Black, Mexican American, and White men. Psychol. Assess. 8, 304-311 (1996).
53. Smith L., Reise S. P.: Gender differences on negative affectivity: an IRT study of differential item functioning on the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire Stress Reaction scale. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 75, 1350-1362 (1998).
54. Steiger J. H.: A note on multiple sample extensions of the RMSEA fit index. Struct. Equ. Model. 5, 411-419 (1998).
55. U. S. Census Bureau: Census 2000 Summary File 3. U. S. Census Bureau, Washington DC (2002a).
56. U. S. Census Bureau: Census 2000 Summary File 3: Technical Documentation. U. S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2002b).
57. U. S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey Operations Plan: Release 1: March 2003. U. S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003).
58. U. S. Census Bureau: Meeting 21st Century Demographic Data Needs-Implementing the American Community Survey Report 4: Comparing General Demographic and Housing Characteristics with Census 2000. U. S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004a).
59. U. S. Census Bureau: 2002 Accuracy of the Data. Retrieved 1 October 2004, from U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Web site: http://www. census. gov/acs/www/Downloads/ACS/accuracy2002. pdf (2004b).
60. Waller N. G., Thompson J. S., Wenk E.: Using IRT to separate measurement bias from true group differences on homogeneous and heterogeneous scales: an illustration with the MMPI. Psychol. Methods 5, 125-146 (2000).