A Test for Ordinal Measurement Invariance

  • Rudy LigtvoetEmail author
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 89)


One problem with the analysis of measurement invariance is the reliance of the analysis on having a parametric model that accurately describes the data. In this paper an ordinal version of the property of measurement invariance is proposed, which relies only on nonparametric restrictions. This property of ordinal measurement invariance provides a coarse (initial) indication of measurement invariance, based on the sum scores. A small example is given to illustrate the procedure for testing the property of ordinal measurement invariance.


  1. Birnbaum A (1968) Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee’s ability. In: Lord FM, Novick MR (eds) Statistical theories of mental test scores. Addison-Wesley, Reading, pp 397–479Google Scholar
  2. Darnanoni V, Forcina A (1998) A unified approach to likelihood inference on stochastic orderings in a nonparametric context. J Am Stat Assoc 93:1112–1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hemker BT, Sijtsma K, Molenaar IW, Junker BW (1997) Stochastic ordering using the latent trait and the sum score in polytomous IRT models. Psychometrika 62:331–347CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Karlin S, Rinott Y (1980) Classes of orderings of measures and related correlation inequalities. I. Multivariate totally positive distributions. J Multivar Anal 10:467–498zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Ligtvoet R (2012) An isotonic partial credit model for ordering subjects on the basis of their sum scores. Psychometrika 77:479–494CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Ligtvoet R (in press) A test for using the sum score to obtain a stochastic ordering of subjects. J Multivariate AnalGoogle Scholar
  7. Masters G (1982) A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika 47:149–174CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Mellenbergh GJ (1989) Item bias and item response theory. Int J Educ Res 13:127–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Meredith W, Millsap RE (1992) On the misuse of manifest variables in the detection of measurement bias. Psychometrika 57:289–311CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Millsap RE, Everson HT (1993) Methodology review: statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Appl Psychol Meas 17:297–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mokken RJ (1971) A theory and procedure for scale analysis. Mouton, The HagueCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Molenaar IW (1997) Nonparametric models for polytomous responses. In: van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK (eds) Handbook of modern item response theory. Springer, New York, pp 369–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rasch G (1960) Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Nielsen & Lydiche, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  14. Shealy R, Stout W (1993) A model-based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from group ability differences and detects test bias/DTF as well as item bias/DIF. Psychometrika 58:159–194CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Thissen D, Steinberg L (1986) A taxonomy of item response models. Psychometrika 51:567–577CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations