Using structural equation modelling to detect measurement bias and response shift in longitudinal data

AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis

Volumn 94, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 139-156

  King Kallimanis, B L ^a   Oort, F J ^a   Garst, G J A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Factor analysis; Longitudinal data; Measurement bias; Response shift; Structural equation modelling

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953912358     PISSN: 18638171     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10182-010-0129-y     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Barendse, M. T., Oort, F. J., Garst, G. J. A.: Using restricted factor analysis with latent moderated structures to detect uniform and non-uniform measurement bias; A simulation study. Adv. Stat. Anal. (2010). doi: 10. 1007/s10182-010-0126-1.
2. Bentler, P. M.: Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull. 107, 238-246 (1990).
3. Bollen, K. A.: Structural Equations with Latent Variables. Wiley, New York (1989).
4. Bollen, K. A.: Modeling strategies: in search of the Holy Grail. Struct. Equ. Modeling 7(1), 74-81 (2000).
5. Browne, M. W., Cudeck, R.: Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol. Methods Res. 21, 230-258 (1992).
6. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., Muthén, B.: Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures-the issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychol. Bull. 105, 456-466 (1989).
7. Cheung, G. W., Rensvold, R. B.: Evaluating goodness-of-fit indices for testing measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Modeling 9, 233-255 (2002).
8. Dudgeon, P.: NIESEM: A computer program for calculating noncentral interval estimates (and power analysis) for structural equation modeling [Computer software] (2003).
9. Golembiewski, R. T., Billingsley, K., Yeager, S.: Measuring change and persistence in human affairs-types of change generated by OD designs. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 12, 133-157 (1976).
10. Hogg, R. S., Yip, B., Chan, K. J., et al.: Rates of disease progression by baseline CD4 cell count and viral load after initiating triple-drug therapy. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 286, 2568-2577 (2001).
11. Holm, S.: A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand. J. Statist. 6, 65-70 (1979).
12. Howard, G. S., Ralph, K. M., Gulanick, N. A., et al.: Internal invalidity in pretest-posttest self-report evaluations and a re-evaluation of retrospective pretests. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 3, 1-23 (1979).
13. Jöreskog, K. G., Sörbom, D.: LISREL 8 User's Guide, 2nd edn. Scientific Software International, Inc., Chicago (1996).
14. Kaplan, D.: Evaluating and modifying covariance structure models: a review and recommendation. Multivar. Behav. Res. 25, 137-155 (1990).
15. Kaplan, D.: Structural Equation Modeling. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2000).
16. MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., Necowitz, L. B.: Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: the problem of capitalization on chance. Psychol. Bull. 111, 490-504 (1992).
17. Mellenbergh, G. J.: Item bias and item response theory. Int. J. Educ. Res. 13, 127-143 (1989).
18. Meredith, W.: Measurement invariance, factor-analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika 58, 525-543 (1993).
19. Meredith, W., Horn, J.: The role of factorial invariance in modeling growth and change. New methods for the analysis of change. In: Collins, L. M., Sayer, A. G. (eds.) New Methods for the Analysis of Change. Decade of Behavior, pp. 179-200. APA, Washington (2001).
20. Nieuwkerk, P. T.: Highly active antiretroviral therapy for HIV-1 infection: Patients' quality of life and treatment adherence. Dissertation, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam (2006).
21. Oort, F. J.: Theory of violators: assessing unidimensionality of psychological measures. In: Steyer, R., Wender, K. F., Widaman, K. F. (eds.) Psychometric Methodology, pp. 377-381. Fischer, Stuttgart (1991).
22. Oort, F. J.: Using structural equation modeling to detect response shifts and true change. Qual. Life Res. 14, 587-598 (2005a).
23. Oort, F. J.: Towards a formal definition of response shift (in reply to G. W. Donaldson). Qual. Life Res. 14, 2353-2355 (2005b).
24. Oort, F. J., Visser, M. R. M., Sprangers, M. A. G.: Formal definitions of measurement bias and explanation bias clarify measurement and conceptual perspectives on response shift. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 62, 1126-1137 (2009).
25. Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., van der Veld, W. M.: Testing structural equation models or detection of misspecifications?. Struct. Equ. Modeling 16, 561-582 (2009).
26. Sayer, A. G., Cumsille, P. E.: Second-order latent growth models. New methods for the analysis of change. In: Collins, L. M., Sayer, A. G. (eds.) New Methods for the Analysis of Change. Decade of Behavior, pp. 179-200. APA, Washington (2001).
27. Schmitt, N., Kuljanin, G.: Measurement invariance: review practice and implications. Hum. Resour. Manage R 18, 210-222 (2008).
28. Sprangers, M. A. G., Schwartz, C. E.: Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model. Soc. Sci. Med. 48(11), 1507-1515 (1999).
29. Steiger, J. H., Shapiro, A., Browne, M. W.: On the multivariate asymptotic distribution of sequential Chi-square statistics. Psychometrika 50(3), 253-263 (1985).
30. Vandenberg, R. J., Lance, C. E.: A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ. Res. Methods 3, 4-70 (2000).
31. Wu, A. W., Revicki, D. A., Jacobson, D., Malitz, F. E.: Evidence for reliability, validity and usefulness of the Medical Outcomes Study HIV Health Survey (MOS-HIV). Qual. Life Res. 6, 481-493 (1997).