Measurement invariance: A foundational principle for quantitative theory building

Human Resource Development Review

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 198-214

  Nimon, Kim ^a   Reio Jr , Thomas G ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

^b FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

human resource development; measurement invariance; quantitative theory building

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955865909     PISSN: 15344843     EISSN: 15526712     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1534484311399731     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
2. Brauchle, P.E., & Azam, M.S. (2004). Factorial invariance of the Occupational Work Ethic Inventory (OWEI). Journal of Vocational Education Research, 29(2), 121-131.
3. Broadbooks, W.J., & Elmore, P.B. (1987). A Monte Carlo study of the sampling distribution of the congruence coefficient. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 1-11.
4. Cattell, R.B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in the behavioral and life sciences. New York, NY: Plenum.
5. Cattell, R.B., Balcar, K.R., Horn, J.L., & Nesselroade, J.R. (1969). Factor matching procedures: An improvement of the s index; with tables. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29, 781-792.
6. Cheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R.B. (2000). Assessing extreme and acquiescence response sets in cross-cultural research using structural equation modeling. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 187-212.
7. Cheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R.B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
8. Cook, C., & Thompson, B. (2001). Psychometric properties of scores from the Web-based LibQUAL+TM study of perceptions of library service quality. Library Trends, 49, 585-604.
9. Doty, D.H., & Glick, W.H. (1998). Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1, 374-406.
10. Fan, X., & Thompson, B. (2001). Confidence intervals around score reliability coefficients, please: An EPM guidelines editorial. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 517-531.
11. Henson, R.K. (2001). Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A conceptual primer on coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 177-189.
12. Henson, R.K., & Roberts, J.K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comments on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 393-416.
13. Horn, J.L., & McArdle, J.J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Journal of Experimental Aging Research, 18, 117-144.
14. Lievens, F., Anseel, F., Harris, M.M., & Eisenberg, J. (2007). Measurement invariance of the Pay Satisfaction Questionnaire across three countries. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 1042-1051.
15. Lowe, P.A., & Reynolds, C.R. (2005). Factor structure of AMAS-C scores across gender among students in collegiate settings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 687-708.
16. Lynham, S.A. (2000). Theory building in the human resource development profession. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11, 159-178.
17. Meredith, W. (1993). MI, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525-543.
18. Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Daniel, L.G. (2003, February 19). Typology of analytical and interpretational errors in quantitative and qualitative educational research. Current Issues in Education, 6(2). Retrieved fromhttp://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume6/number2/.
19. Reio, T.G., Jr. (2010). The threat of common method variance bias in theory building. Human Resource Development Review, 9, 405-411.
20. Reynolds, C.R., & Harding, R.E. (1983). Outcome in two large sample studies of factorial similarity under six methods of comparison. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43, 723-728.
21. Reynolds, C.R., Lowe, P.A., & Saenz, A.L. (1999). The problem of bias in psychological assessment. In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (3rd ed., pp. 549-595). New York, NY: Wiley.
22. Rock, D.A., Werts, C.E., & Flaugher, R.L. (1978). The use of analysis of covariance structures for comparing the psychometric properties of multiple variables across populations. Behavioral Research, 13, 403-418.
23. Rusticus, S.A., Hubley, A.M., & Zumbo, B.D. (2008). Measurement invariance on the Appearance Schemas Inventory-Revised and the Body Image Quality of Life Inventory across age and gender. Assessment, 15, 60-71.
24. Schwaninger, M., & Grösser, S. (2008). System dynamics as model-based theory building. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25, 447-465.
25. Spector, P.E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221-232.
26. Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78-90.
27. Teo, T. (2010). The development, validation, and analysis of measurement invariance of the Technology Acceptance Measure for Preservice Teachers (TAMPST). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 990-1006.
28. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
29. Thompson, B., Cook, C., & Heath, F. (2001). How many dimensions does it take to measure users' perceptions of libraries: A LibQUAL+TM study. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 1, 129-138.
30. Thompson, B., Cook, C., & Thompson, R.L. (2002). Reliability and structure of LibQUAL+TM scores: Measuring perceived library service quality. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 2, 3-12.
31. Torraco, R.J. (2004). Challenges and choices for theoretical research in human resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 171-188.
32. 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, 3, 4-70.
33. Wu, A.D., Li, Z., & Zumbo, B.D. (2007). Decoding the meaning of factorial invariance and updating the practice of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis: A demonstration with TIMSS data. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(3). Retrieved fromhttp://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=12&n=3.
34. Zientek, L., Yetkiner, Z.E., & Thompson, B. (2010). Characterizing the mathematics anxiety literature using confidence intervals as a literature review mechanism. Journal of Educational Research, 103, 424-438.