Quality & Quantity

, 43:599 | Cite as

Testing measurement invariance using multigroup CFA: differences between educational groups in human values measurement

  • Holger SteinmetzEmail author
  • Peter Schmidt
  • Andrea Tina-Booh
  • Siegrid Wieczorek
  • Shalom H. Schwartz
Original Paper


This article applies the testing procedures for measurement invariance using multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA). It illustrates these procedures by investigating the factorial structure and invariance of the Portraits Value Questionnaire (PVQ, Schwartz et al.: J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 32(5), 519–542 (2001)) across three education groups in a population sample (N  =  1,677). The PVQ measures 10 basic values that Schwartz postulates to comprehensively describe the human values recognized in all societies (achievement, hedonism, self-direction, benevolence, conformity, security, stimulation, power, tradition and universalism). We also estimate and compare the latent means of the three education groups. The analyses show partial invariance for most of the 10 values and parameters. As expected, the latent means show that less educated respondents attribute more importance to security, tradition, and conformity values.


Measurement invariance Multigroup analyses Values Cross-cultural psychology Education Survey 


  1. Akaike, H.: Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika 52, 317–322 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumgartner, H., Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M.: Multi-group latent variable models for varying numbers of items and factors with cross-national and longitudinal applications. Mark. Lett. 9(1), 21–35 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentler, P.M.: Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull. 107, 238–246 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Billiet, J.: Cross-cultural equivalence with structural equation modeling. In: Mohler, P.P.(eds) Cross-Cultural Survey Methods, pp. 247–264. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New Jersey (2002)Google Scholar
  5. Bollen, K.A.: Structural Equations With Latent Variables. Wiley, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  6. Browne, M.W., Cudeck, R.: Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen, K.A., Long, J.S.(eds) Testing Structural Equation Models, pp. 36–162. Sage, Newbury Park (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 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(3), 456–466 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cole, D.A., Maxwell, S.E.: Multitrait-multimethod comparisons across populations: a confirmatory factor analytic approach. Multivariate Behav. Res. 20, 389–417 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Converse, P.: The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In: Apter, D.(eds) Ideology and Discontent, pp. 206–261. Free Press, New York (1964)Google Scholar
  10. Cronbach, L.J., Meehl, P.E.: Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol. Bull. 52, 281–302 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., Schwartz, S.H.: Bringing values back in: a multiple group comparison with 20 countries using the European Social Survey. Public Opin. Q. (in press)Google Scholar
  12. Hayduk, L.A.: Structural Equation Modeling—Essentials and Advances. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London (1989)Google Scholar
  13. Hinz, A., Brähler, E., Schmidt, P., Albani, C.: Investigating the circumplex structure of the Portraits Value Questionnaire (PVQ). J. Individ. Differ. 26(4), 185–193 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hu, L.-T., Bentler, P.M.: Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equation Model. 6, 1–55 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jöreskog, K.G.: Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika 36, 409–426 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jöreskog, K.G., Sörbom, D.: Lisrel 8 User’s Reference Guide. Scientific Software International, Chicago (1993)Google Scholar
  17. Judd, C., Milburn, M., Krosnick, J.: Political involvement and attitude structure in the general public. Am. Sociol. Rev. 46, 660–669 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Little, T.D.: Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behav. Res. 32(1), 53 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Little, T.D., Slegers, D.W., Card, N.A.: A non-arbitrary method of identifying and scaling latent variables in SEM and MACS models. Struct. Equation Model. 13(1), 59–72 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marsh, H.W., Hocevar, D.: Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: first- and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychol. Bull. 97(3), 562–582 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meredith, W.: Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika 58(4), 525–543 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Millsap, R.E., Everson, H.: Confirmatory measurement model comparisons using latent means. Multivariate Behav. Res. 26(3), 479–497 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Millsap, R.E., Hartog, S.B.: Alpha, beta, and gamma change in evaluation research. J. Appl. Psychol. 73, 564–574 (1988)Google Scholar
  24. Muthén, B.: Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations. Psychometrika 54(4), 557–585 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ployhardt, R.E., Oswald, F.L.: Applications of mean and covariance structure analysis: integrating correlational and experimental approaches. Organ. Res. Methods 7(1), 27–65 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Saris, W.E., Sniderman, P.M.: Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change. University Press, Princeton (2004)Google Scholar
  27. Schmidt, P., Bamberg, S., Davidov, E., Hermann, J., Schwartz, S.H.: Die Messung von Werten mit dem, Portraits Value Questionnaire’ [The Measurement of Values with the, Portraits Value Questionnaire’]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie. 38(4), 249–263Google Scholar
  28. Schmitt, M.J., Schwartz, S.H., Steyer, R., Schmitt, T.: Measurement models for the Schwartz values inventory. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 9(2), 107–121 (1993)Google Scholar
  29. Schwartz, S.H.: Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries In: Zanna, M. (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 25, pp. 1–65. Academic Press, Orlando (1992)Google Scholar
  30. Schwartz, S.H.: Basic human values: their content and structure across countries. In: Tamayo, A., Porto, J.B.(eds) Valores e comportamento nas organizações [Values and Behavior in Organizations], pp. 21–55. Vozes, Petrópolis (2005a)Google Scholar
  31. Schwartz, S.H.: Robustness and fruitfulness of a theory of universals in individual human values. In: Tamayo, A., Porto, J.B.(eds) Valores e comportamento nas organizações [Values and Behavior in Organizations], pp. 56–95. Vozes, Petrópolis (2005 b)Google Scholar
  32. Schwartz, S.H., Boehnke, K.: Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. J. Res. Pers. 38(3), 230–255 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schwartz, S.H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., Owens, V.: Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 32(5), 519–542 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sörbom, D.: An alternative to the methodology for analysis of covariances. Psychometrika 43, 381–396 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Spini, D.: Measurement equivalence of 10 value types from the Schwartz value survey across 21 countries. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 34(1), 3–23 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., Baumgartner, H.: Assessing measurement invariance in crossnational consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 25, 78–90 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thompson, M.S., Green, S.B.: Evaluating between-group differences in latent means. In: Hancock, G.R., Mueller, R.O.(eds) Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course, pp. 119–169. Information Age, Greenwich (2006)Google Scholar
  38. Vijver, F.J.R., Leung, K.: Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research. Sage, Newbury Park (1997)Google Scholar
  39. 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(1), 4–69 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zaller, J.R.: The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. University Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Holger Steinmetz
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peter Schmidt
    • 1
  • Andrea Tina-Booh
    • 1
  • Siegrid Wieczorek
    • 1
  • Shalom H. Schwartz
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Work and Organizational PsychologyUniversity of GiessenGiessenGermany
  2. 2.Hebrew UniversityJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations