Advertisement

Psychometrika

, Volume 58, Issue 4, pp 525–543 | Cite as

Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance

  • William Meredith
Article

Abstract

Several concepts are introduced and defined: measurement invariance, structural bias, weak measurement invariance, strong factorial invariance, and strict factorial invariance. It is shown that factorial invariance has implications for (weak) measurement invariance. Definitions of fairness in employment/admissions testing and salary equity are provided and it is argued that strict factorial invariance is required for fairness/equity to exist. Implications for item and test bias are developed and it is argued that item or test bias probably depends on the existence of latent variables that are irrelevant to the primary goal of test constructers.

Key words

measurement invariance test bias item bias factor analysis factorial invariance selection group differences fairness equity 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Birnbaum, M. H. (1985). Relationships among models of salary bias.American Psychologist, 40, 862–6.Google Scholar
  2. Bloxom, B. (1972). Alternative approaches to factorial invariance.Psychometrika, 37, 425–40.Google Scholar
  3. Chang, H. & Mazzeo, J. (1993, June). The identifiability of expected score in conceptualizations of differential item functioning for polytomously scored items. Paper presented at Psychometric Society Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
  4. French, J. W., Ekstrom, R. B., & Price, L. A. (1963).Kit of reference tests for cognitive factors. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  5. Gregory, K. (1991).A reconsideration of bias in employment testing from the perspective of factorial invariance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  6. Guttman, L. (1955). The determinacy of factor score matrices with implications for five basic problems in common factor theory.British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 8, 65–81.Google Scholar
  7. Horn, J. L. (1985). Remodeling old models of intelligence. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.),Handbook of intelligence. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Horn, J. L. (1986). Intellectual ability concepts. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 3). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Horn, J. L., McArdle, J. J., Mason, R. (1983). When is invariance not invariant: A practical scientist's look at the ethereal concept of factor invariance.The Southern Psychologist, 1, 179–88.Google Scholar
  10. Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests.Psychometrika, 36, 109–133.Google Scholar
  11. Jöreskog, K. G. & Sörbom, D. (1988).LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications (2nd ed.). Chicago: SPSS.Google Scholar
  12. Junker, B. W. (1991). Essential independence and likelihood based ability estimation for polytomous items.Psychometrika, 56, 255–78.Google Scholar
  13. Kearns, R. J. (1971).Latent class models for response emission tests. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  14. Lord, F. M. (1952). A theory of test scores. New York: Psychometric Society;Psychometric Monograph, No. 7.Google Scholar
  15. Lord, F. M. (1980).Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Lord, F. M. & Novick, M. R. (1968).Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  17. Mazzeo, J. & Chang, H. (1993, June).Detection of differential item functioning for polytomously scored items. An adaptation of Shealy and Stout's SIBTEST procedure. Paper presented at Psychometric Society Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
  18. McArdle, J. J. & Cattell, R. B. (in press). Structural equation models of factorial invariance in parallel proportion profiles and oblique confactor problems.Multivariate Behavioral Research.Google Scholar
  19. McCallum, R. C. & Tucker, L. R. (1991). Representing sources of error in the common factor model: Implications for theory and practice.Psychological Bulletin, 109, 502–11.Google Scholar
  20. Mellenbergh, G. J. (1989). Item bias and item response theory.International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 127–43.Google Scholar
  21. Meredith, W. (1964). Notes on factorial invariance.Psychometrika, 29, 177–85.Google Scholar
  22. Meredith, W. (1971). Poisson distributions of error in Mental Test Theory.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 24, 49–82.Google Scholar
  23. Meredith, W. & Millsap, R. E. (1992). On the misuse of manifest variables in the detection of measurement bias.Psychometrika, 57, 289–311.Google Scholar
  24. Millsap, R. E. & Meredith, W. (in press). Statistical evidence in salary discrimination studies: Nonparametric inferential conditions.Applied Psychological Measurement.Google Scholar
  25. Muthén, B. O. (1989). Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations.Psychometrika, 54, 557–88.Google Scholar
  26. Muthén, B. & Lehman, J. (1985). Multiple group IRT modeling: Applications to item bias analysis.Journal of Educational Statistics, 10, 133–42.Google Scholar
  27. Sands, L., Terry, H., & Meredith, W. (1989). Change and stability in adult intellectual functioning assessed by Wechsler item responses.Psychology and Aging, 2, 79–87.Google Scholar
  28. Shealy, R. & Stout, W. (1993a). An item response theory model for test bias and differential test functioning. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer.Differential item functioning: Theory and practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Shealy, R. & Stout, W. (1993b). A model based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF as well as item bias/DIF.Psychometrika, 159–194.Google Scholar
  30. Silny, F. & Meredith, W. (1973). Test of a model for response emission tests.Proceedings, 81st Annual Convention, American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  31. Stout, W. (1990). A new item response theory modeling approach with applications to unidimensionality assessment and ability estimation.Psychometrika, 55, 293–325.Google Scholar
  32. Sörbom, D. (1974). A general method for studying differences in factor means and factor structures between groups.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 28, 229–39.Google Scholar
  33. Tryon, R. C. (1958). General dimensions of individual differences: Cluster analysis vs. factor analysis.Educational & Psychological Measurement, 18, 447–95.Google Scholar
  34. Wechsler, D. (1981).Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychometric Society 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Meredith
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options