Abstract
Measurement validation in the behavioral sciences is generally carried out in a psychometric modeling framework that assumes unobservable traits/constructs (i.e., latent factors) created from the observed variables (often items measuring that construct) are the variables of interest.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397–438.
Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 815–824.
Barry, C. L., & Finney, S. J. (2009). Does it matter how data are collected? A comparison of testing conditions and the implications for validity. Research & Practice in Assessment, 3, 1–15.
Borsboom, D. (2006). When does measurement invariance matter? Medical Care, 44(11), 176–181.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, N.J.: Guiford Press.
Browne, M. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 111–150.
Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge.
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.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504.
Chen, F. F. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1005–1018.
Chen, F. F., Sousa, K. H., & West, S. G. (2005). Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 471–492.
Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (in press). A direct comparison approach for testing measurement invariance. Organizational Research Methods.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups: A reconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal of Management, 25, 1–27.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2000). Assessing extreme and acquiescence response sets in crosscultural research using structural equations modeling, Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 31, 187–212.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.
Dimitrov, D. M. (2010). Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43, 121–149.
French, B. F., & Finch, W. H. (2008). Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis: Locating the invariant referent sets. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 96–113.
Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P., & Spielberger C. (Eds.). (2005). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hancock, G. R., Lawrence, F. R., & Nevitt, J. (2000). Type I error and power of latent mean methods and manova in factorially invariant and noninvariant latent variable systems. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 534–556.
Horn J. L., McArdle J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18, 117–144.
Hu & Bentler (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Coventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Hui, E. K. P., & Chan, D. W. (1996). Teacher stress and guidance work in Hong Kong secondary school teachers. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 24, 199–211.
Kamata, A., & Bauer, D. J. (2008). A note on the relation between factor analytic and item response theory models. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 136–153.
Little, T. D., Slegers, D. W., & Card, N. A. (2006). A non-arbitrary method of identifying and scaling latent variables in SEM and MACS models. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 59–72.
Lubke, G. H., & Muthén, B. O. (2004). Applying multi-group confirmatory factor models for continuous outcomes to Likert scale data complicates meaningful group comparisons. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 514–534.
Marsh, H. W. (1985). The structure of masculintiy/feminity: An application of confirmatory factor analysis to higher-order factor structures and factorial invariance. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 20, 427–449.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. L. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralising Hu & Bentler (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320–341.
Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of selfconcept: First- and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 562–582.
Marsh, H. W., Liem, G. A., Martin, A. J., Nagengast, B., & Morin, A. J. S. (2011). Methodologicalmeasurement fruitfulness of Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM): New approaches to key substantive issues in motivation and engagement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 322–346.
Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J. S., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the big-five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471–491.
Marsh, H. W., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Morin, A. J. S., & Trautwein, U. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Applications to students’ evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 439–476.
Martin, N. K., & Sass, D. A. (2010). Construct validation of the Behavior and Instructional Management Scale. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1124–1135.
Martin, N. K., Sass, D. A., & Schmitt, T. A. (2012). Teacher efficacy in student engagement, instructional management, student stressors, and burnout: A theoretical model using in-class variables to predict teachers’ intent-to-leave. Teaching and Teacher Education. 28, 546–559.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E. Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual, 3rd Ed. Mountain View, CA.: CPP, Inc.
MacCallum, R. C. , Roznowski, M. & Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 490–504.
McDonald, R. P., & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodnessof-fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 247–255.
McDonald, R. P., Seifert, C. F., Lorenzet, S. J., Givens, S., & Jaccard, J. (2002). The effectiveness of methods for analyzing multivariate factorial data. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 255–274.
McIntosh, C. (2007). Rethinking fit assessment in structural equation modelling: A commentary and elaboration on Barrett (2007). Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 859–857.
McLaney, M. A., & Hurrell, J. J. (1988). Control, stress, and job satisfaction in Canadian nurses. Work and Stress, 2, 217–224.
Meade, A. W., & Bauer, D. J. (2007). Power and precision in confirmatory factor analytic tests of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 611–635.
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, 568–592.
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurment invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543.
Millsap, R. E. (1998). Group differences in regression intercepts: Implications for factorial invariance. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 403–424.
Millsap, R. E. (2001). When trivial constraints are not trivial: The choice of uniqueness constraints in confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 1–17.
Millsap, R. E., & Kwok, O. (2004). Evaluating the impact of partial factorial invariance on selection in two populations. Psychological Methods, 9, 93–115.
Millsap, R. E., & Meredith, W. (2007). Factorial invariance: Historical perspectives and new problems. In R. Cudeck & R. MacCallum (Eds.), Factor analysis at 100 (pp. 131–152). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Millsap, R. E., & Yun-Tein, J. (2004). Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 479–515.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus User’s Guide. 6th Ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P., & Savalei, V. (2010). How many categories is enough to treat data as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under a range of non-ideal situations. Retrieved from http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~mijke/files/HowManyCategories.pdf
Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., & van der Veld, W. (2009). Testing structural equation models or detection of misspecifications? Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 561–582.
Sass, D. A., Schmitt, T. A., & Marsh, H. W. (in press). Evaluating model fit with ordered categorical data within a measurement invariance framework: A comparison of estimators. Structural Equation Modeling
Selig, J. P., Card, N. A., & Little, T. D. (2008). Latent variable structural equation modeling in crosscultural research: Multigroup and multilevel approaches. In F. J. R. van de Vijver, D. A. van Hemert & Y. Poortinga (Eds.) Individuals and Cultures in Multi-level Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., & van der Veld, W. (2009). Testing structural equation models or detection of misspecifications? Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 561–582.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75, 243–248.
Steiger, J. H. (2002). When constraints interact: A caution about reference variables, identification constraints, and scale dependencies in structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 7, 210–227.
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, 4–69.
Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (2000). Methodological issues in psychological research on culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(1), 33–35.
Widaman, K. F., & Reise, S. P. (1997). Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: Applications in the substance use domain. In K. J. Book 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.
Yu, C. Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Yuan, K. H., & Bentler, P. M. (2000). Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. In Sobel, M. E., & Becker, M. P. (Eds.), Sociological methodology 2000 (pp. 165–200). Washington, D.C.: ASA.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Sense Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sass, D.A., Schmitt, T.A. (2013). Testing Measurement and Structural Invariance. In: Teo, T. (eds) Handbook of Quantitative Methods for Educational Research. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-404-8_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-404-8_15
Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam
Online ISBN: 978-94-6209-404-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)