A comparison of sequential and nonsequential specification searches in testing factorial invariance

Behavior Research Methods

Volumn 46, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 1199-1206

  Yoon, Myeongsun ^a   Kim, Eun Sook ^b  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Measurement invariance; Model modification; Modification index; Partial invariance

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; POSITIVITY RATE; SIMULATION; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVALUATION STUDY; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; METHODOLOGY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 84933679061     PISSN: 1554351X     EISSN: 15543528     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13428-013-0430-2     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Browne, M. W., & Arminger, G. (1995). Specification and estimation of mean and covariance structure models. In G. Arminger, C. C. Clogg, & M. E. Sobel (Eds.), Handbook of Statistical Modeling for the Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 185–249). New York: Plenum. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4899-1292-3_4
2. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456
3. Carle, A., Millsap, R. E., & Cole, D. (2008). Measurement bias across gender on the Children's Depression Inventory: Evidence for invariance from two latent variable models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 281–303. DOI: 10.1177/0013164407308471
4. Cheung, G. W. (2008). Testing equivalence in the structure, means, and variances of higher-order constructs with structural equation modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 11(3), 593–613. DOI: 10.1177/1094428106298973
5. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1998). Cross-cultural comparisons using non-invariant measurement items. Applied Behavioral Science Review, 6(1), 93–110. DOI: 10.1016/S1068-8595(99)80006-3
6. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. DOI: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
7. Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? an experiment using 5 point, 7 point and 10 point scales. International Journal of Market Research, 51(1). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2013613
8. Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9, 466–491. DOI: 10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.466
9. French, B. F., & Finch, W. H. (2008). Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis: Locating the invariant referent sets. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 15(1), 96–113. DOI: 10.1080/10705510701758349
10. Immekus, J. C., & Maller, S. J. (2010). Factor structure invariance of the Kaufman adolescent and adult intelligence test across male and female samples. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 91–104. DOI: 10.1177/0013164409344491
11. Kim, S., Kim, S. H., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2010). Is aggression the same for boys and girls? Measurement invariance with confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(1), 45–61. DOI: 10.1037/a0018768
12. Kim, E., Kwok, O., & Yoon, M. (2012). Testing factorial invariance in multilevel data: A Monte Carlo study. Structural Equation Modeling, 19, 250–267. DOI: 10.1080/10705511.2012.659623
13. Kim, E. S., & Yoon, M. (2011). Testing measurement invariance: A comparison of multiple-group categorical CFA and IRT. Structural Equation Modeling, 18(2), 212–228. DOI: 10.1080/10705511.2011.557337
14. Kim, E. S., Yoon, M., & Lee, T. (2012). Testing measurement invariance using MIMIC: Likelihood ratio test with a critical value adjustment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(3), 469–492. DOI: 10.1177/0013164411427395
15. Kwok, O., Luo, W., & West, S. G. (2010). Using modification indices to detect turning points in longitudinal data: A Monte Carlo study. Structural Equation Modeling, 17, 216–240. DOI: 10.1080/10705511003659359
16. Marshall, G. N. (2004). Posttraumatic stress disorder symptom checklist: Factor structure and English–Spanish measurement invariance. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17(3), 223–230. DOI: 10.1023/B:JOTS.0000029265.56982.86
17. Meade, A. W., & Bauer, D. J. (2007). Power and precision in confirmatory factor analytic tests of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 611–635. doi:10.1080/10705510701575461 DOI: 10.1080/10705510701575461
18. Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 568–592. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568
19. Meade, A. W., & Lautenschlager, G. J. (2004). A comparison of item response theory and confirmatory factor analytic methodologies for establishing measurement equivalence/invariance. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 361–388. DOI: 10.1177/1094428104268027
20. Meade, A. W., Michels, L. C., & Lautenschlager, G. J. (2007). Are internet and paper-and-pencil personality tests truly comparable? an experimental design measurement invariance study? Organizational Research Methods, 10(2), 322–345. DOI: 10.1177/1094428106289393
21. Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis, and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543. DOI: 10.1007/BF02294825
22. Millsap, R. E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. New York: Taylor and Francis Group.
23. Millsap, R. E., & Tein, J.-Y. (2004). Assessing factorial invariance in ordered ordinal measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(3), 479–515. DOI: 10.1207/S15327906MBR3903_4
24. Muthén, B. O. (1984). A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika, 49, 115–132. DOI: 10.1007/BF02294210
25. Muthén, B. O., & Asparouhov, T. (2002). Latent variable analysis with categorical outcomes: Multiple-group and growth modeling in mplus (MplusWeb Notes No. 4). Retrieved from http://www.statmodel.com/download/webnotes/CatMGLong.pdf
26. Muthén, B. O., du Toit, S. H. C., & Spisic, D. (1997). Robust inference using weighted least squares and quadratic estimating equations in latent variable modeling with ordered categorical and continuous outcomes. Unpublished manuscript.
27. Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. K. (2009). Mplus 6.11 [Computer software]. Los Angenles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
28. Oort, F. J. (1998). Simulation study of item bias detection with restricted factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 5(2), 107–124. DOI: 10.1080/10705519809540095
29. Poteat, V. P., & Spanierman, L. B. (2008). Further validation of psychosocial costs of racism to whites scale among employed adults. The Counseling Psychologist, 36(6), 871–894. DOI: 10.1177/0011000007310002
30. Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 552–566. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.552
31. Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Drasgow, F. (2006). Detecting differential item functioning with confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Toward a unified strategy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1292–1306. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1292
32. Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78–90. DOI: 10.1086/209528
33. 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. DOI: 10.1177/109442810031002
34. Van de Velde, S., Bracke, P., Levecque, K., & Meuleman, B. (2010). Gender differences in depression in 25 European countries after eliminating measurement bias in the CES-D8. Social Science Research, 39(3), 396–404.
35. Widaman, K. F., & Reise, S. P. (1997). Exploring the measurement invariance of Book psychological instruments: Applications in the substance use domain. In K. J. Chapter 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.
36. Willse, J. T., & Goodman, J. T. (2008). Comparison of multiple-indicators, multiple-causes--and item response theory-based analyses of subgroup differences. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(4), 587–602.
37. Woods, C. M. (2009). Evaluation of MIMIC-model methods for DIF testing with comparison to two-group analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44(1), 1–27. DOI: 10.1080/00273170802620121
38. Woods, C. M., Oltmanns, T. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2009). Illustration of MIMIC-model DIF testing with the schedule for nonadaptive and adaptive personality. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 31(4), 320–330. DOI: 10.1007/s10862-008-9118-9
39. Yoon, M. (2008). Statistical power in testing factorial invariance with ordinal measures. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(11), 7705B–7854B.
40. Yoon, M., & Millsap, R. E. (2007). Detecting violations of factorial invariance using data-based specification searches: A Monte Carlo study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 435–463. DOI: 10.1080/10705510701301677