Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Testing Measurement and Structural Invariance

  • Chapter
Book cover Handbook of Quantitative Methods for Educational Research

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 815–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borsboom, D. (2006). When does measurement invariance matter? Medical Care, 44(11), 176–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, N.J.: Guiford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 111–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, F. F., Sousa, K. H., & West, S. G. (2005). Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 471–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (in press). A direct comparison approach for testing measurement invariance. Organizational Research Methods.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups: A reconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal of Management, 25, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrov, D. M. (2010). Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43, 121–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French, B. F., & Finch, W. H. (2008). Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis: Locating the invariant referent sets. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 96–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P., & Spielberger C. (Eds.). (2005). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn J. L., McArdle J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18, 117–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu & Bentler (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Coventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, N. K., & Sass, D. A. (2010). Construct validation of the Behavior and Instructional Management Scale. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1124–1135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E. Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual, 3rd Ed. Mountain View, CA.: CPP, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. P., & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodnessof-fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 247–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh, C. (2007). Rethinking fit assessment in structural equation modelling: A commentary and elaboration on Barrett (2007). Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 859–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaney, M. A., & Hurrell, J. J. (1988). Control, stress, and job satisfaction in Canadian nurses. Work and Stress, 2, 217–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meade, A. W., & Bauer, D. J. (2007). Power and precision in confirmatory factor analytic tests of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 611–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meredith, W. (1993). Measurment invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millsap, R. E. (1998). Group differences in regression intercepts: Implications for factorial invariance. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 403–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millsap, R. E., & Kwok, O. (2004). Evaluating the impact of partial factorial invariance on selection in two populations. Psychological Methods, 9, 93–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millsap, R. E., & Yun-Tein, J. (2004). Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 479–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus User’s Guide. 6th Ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., & van der Veld, W. (2009). Testing structural equation models or detection of misspecifications? Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 561–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., & van der Veld, W. (2009). Testing structural equation models or detection of misspecifications? Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 561–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75, 243–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Daniel A. Sass
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas A. Schmitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Auckland, New Zealand

    Timothy Teo

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation