An examination of model fit and measurement invariance of general mental ability and personality measures used in the multilingual context of the Swiss Armed Forces: A Bayesian structural equation modeling approach

References

• Amthauer, R., Brocke, B., Liepmann, D., & Beauducel, A. (2001). Intelligenz-Struktur-Test 2000 R [Test of intelligence structure 2000 R]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
   Google Scholar
• Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Multiple-group factor analysis alignment. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(4), 495–508. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.919210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asparouhov, T., Muthén, B. O., & Morin, A. J. S. (2015). Bayesian structural equation modeling with cross-loadings and residual covariances: Comments on Stromeyer et al. Journal of Management, 41(6), 1561–1577. doi:10.1177/0149206315591075.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandalos, D. L. (2018). Measurement theory and applications for the social sciences. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bollen, K. A., Gates, K. M., & Fisher, Z. (2018). Robustness conditions for MIIV-2SLS when the latent variable or measurement model is structurally misspecified. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(6), 848–859. doi:10.1080/10705511.2018.1456341.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boss, P., & Brenner, C. (2006). Kaderbeurteilung II: Persönlichkeitsfragebogen: Skalen B5 (Big Five) [Cadre assessment II: Personality questionnaire: Scales B5 (Big Five)]. Zurich, Switzerland: Department of Social and Business Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of Zurich.
   Google Scholar
• Boss, P., & Fischer, S. (2006). Kaderbeurteilung II: Konzentrations-Belastungs-Test (KBT) [Cadre assessment II: Concentration-stress test]. Zurich, Switzerland: Department of Social and Business Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of Zurich.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cain, M. K., & Zhang, Z. (2019). Fit for a Bayesian: An evaluation of PPP and DIC for structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26(1), 39–50. doi:10.1080/10705511.2018.1490648.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
   Google Scholar
• Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cieciuch, J., Davidov, E., Algesheimer, R., & Schmidt, P. (2018). Testing for approximate measurement invariance of human values in the European Social Survey. Sociological Methods & Research, 47(4), 665–686. doi:10.1177/0049124117701478.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
   Google Scholar
• Darr, W. (2011). Military personality research: A meta-analysis of the Self Description Inventory. Military Psychology, 23(3), 272–296. doi:10.1080/08995605.2011.570583.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egger, I., & Boss, P. (2006a). Kaderbeurteilung II: Persönlichkeitsfragebogen: Skala SV (Soziales Verhalten) [Cadre assessment II: Personality questionnaire: Scale SV (social behavior)]. Zurich, Switzerland: Department of Social and Business Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of Zurich.
   Google Scholar
• Egger, I., & Boss, P. (2006b). Kaderbeurteilung II: Persönlichkeitsfragebogen: Skala KV (Konfliktverhalten) [Cadre assessment II: Personality questionnaire: Scale KV (proactive conflict behavior)]. Zurich, Switzerland: Department of Social and Business Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of Zurich.
   Google Scholar
• Egger, I., & Boss, P. (2006c). Kaderbeurteilung II: Persönlichkeitsfragebogen: Skala IN (Integrität) [Cadre assessment II: Personality questionnaire: Scale IN (integrity)]. Zurich, Switzerland: Department of Social and Business Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of Zurich.
   Google Scholar
• Elosua, P., & López-Jáuregui, A. (2008). Equating between linguistically different tests: Consequences for assessment. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(4), 387–402. doi:10.3200/JEXE.76.4.387-402.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (2004). Bayesian data analysis (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Giauque, N., Vaso, H. M., & Boss, P. (2006). Kaderbeurteilung II: Führungsmotivations-Fragebogen [Cadre assessment II: Leadership motivation questionnaire]. Zurich, Switzerland: Department of Social and Business Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of Zurich.
   Google Scholar
• Goldammer, P. (2019). The benefits of careless response screenings and regularized structural equation models in obtaining credible and interpretable study results: An illustration based in the evaluation of cadre selection tools of the Swiss Armed Forces (Doctoral dissertation). Zurich, Switzerland: University of Zurich.
   Google Scholar
• Goldammer, P., Annen, H., Stöckli, P. L., & Jonas, K. (2020). Careless responding in questionnaire measures: Detection, impact, and remedies. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(4), 101384. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 141–165.
   Google Scholar
• Gunn, H. J., Grimm, K. J., & Edwards, M. C. (2020). Evaluation of six effect size measures of measurement non-invariance for continuous outcomes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27(4), 503–514. doi:10.1080/10705511.2019.1689507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gürber, C., & Skupnjak, A. (2006). Kaderbeurteilung II: Persönlichkeitsfragebogen: Skala LM (Leistungsmotivation) [Cadre assessment II: Personality questionnaire: Scale LM (achievement motivation)]. Zurich, Switzerland: Department of Social and Business Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of Zurich.
   Google Scholar
• Holden, R. R. (2008). Underestimating the effects of faking on the validity of self-report personality scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(1), 311–321. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.08.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornke, L. F., Etzel, S., & Küppers, A. (2000). Konstruktion und Evaluation eines adaptiven Matrizentests [Design and evaluation of an adaptive matrices test]. Diagnostica, 46, 182–188. doi:10.1026//0012-1924.46.4.182
   Google Scholar
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: A multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ion, A., & Iliescu, D. (2017). The measurement equivalence of personality measures across high-and low-stake test taking settings. Personality and Individual Differences, 110, 1–6. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobucci, R., & Grimm, K. J. (2018). Comparison of frequentist and Bayesian regularization in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(4), 639–649. doi:10.1080/10705511.2017.1410822.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobucci, R., Grimm, K. J., & McArdle, J. J. (2016). Regularized structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(4), 555–566. doi:10.1080/10705511.2016.1154793.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jäger, A. O. (1982). Mehrmodale Klassifikation von Intelligenzl-eistungen: Experimentell kontrollierte Weiterentwicklung eines deskriptiven Intelligenzstrukturmodells [Multimodal classification of intelligence tests: Experimentally controlled development of a descriptive model of intelligence structure]. Diagnostica, 28, 195–225.
   Google Scholar
• Jäger, A. O. (1984). Intelligenzstrukturforschung: Konkurrierende Modelle, neue Entwicklungen, Perspektiven [Research on intelligence structure: Competing models, new developments, perspectives]. Psychologische Rundschau, 35, 21–35.
   Google Scholar
• Jäger, A. O., Süss, H. M., & Beauducel, A. (1997). Berliner Intelligenzstruktur-Test: BIS-Test, Form 4 [Berlin Intelligence Structure Test, BIS-Test, Form 4]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan, D., & George, R. (1995). A study of the power associated with testing factor mean differences under violations of factorial invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2(2), 101–118. doi:10.1080/10705519509539999.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, E. S., Cao, C., Wang, Y., & Nguyen, D. T. (2017). Measurement invariance testing with many groups: A comparison of five approaches. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 24(4), 524–544. doi:10.1080/10705511.2017.1304822.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2014). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kruschke, J. K. (2014). Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lécher, C., & Boss, P. (2006). Kaderbeurteilung II: Persönlichkeitsfragebogen: Skala BV (Beeinflussungsverhalten) [Cadre assessment II: Personality questionnaire: Scale BV (influencing behavior)]. Zurich, Switzerland: Department of Social and Business Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of Zurich.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, P., Joo, S. H., & Fyffe, S. (2019). Investigating faking effects on the construct validity through the Monte Carlo simulation study. Personality and Individual Differences, 150, 109491. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2019.07.001.
   Web of Science ®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(3), 490–504. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.3.490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maier, E. (2008). Testkürzungen: Persönlichkeitstests Kaderbeurteilung II [Test shortening: Personality tests cadre assessment II]. Zurich, Switzerland: Department of Social and Business Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of Zurich.
   Google Scholar
• Marsh, H. W., Guo, J., Parker, P. D., Nagengast, B., Asparouhov, T., Muthén, B., & Dicke, T. (2018). What to do when scalar invariance fails: The extended alignment method for multi-group factor analysis comparison of latent means across many groups. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 524–545. doi:10.1037/met0000113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meade, A. W. (2010). A taxonomy of effect size measures for the differential functioning of items and scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 728–743. doi:10.1037/a0018966.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melliger, E., & Boss, P. (2006). Kaderbeurteilung II: Persönlichkeitsfragebogen: Skala SS (Selbstständigkeit) [Cadre assessment II: Personality questionnaire: Scale SS (independence)]. Zurich, Switzerland: Department of Social and Business Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of Zurich.
   Google Scholar
• Mussel, P. (2003). Persönlichkeitsinventar zur Integritätsabschä-tzung (PIA) [Integrity test PIA]. In J. Erpenbeck & L. von Rosenstiel (Eds.), Handbuch Kompetenzmessung [Manual of competence measurement] (pp. 3–18). Stuttgart, Germany: Schäffer-Poeschel.
   Google Scholar
• Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: A more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 313–335. doi:10.1037/a0026802.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muthén, B. O., & Asparouhov, T. (2013). BSEM measurement invariance analysis. (Mplus Web Notes: No. 17). Retrieved from: http://www.statmodel.com/examples/webnotes/webnote17.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Muthén, B. O., Muthén, L. K., & Asparouhov, T. (2017). Regression and mediation analysis using Mplus. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
   Google Scholar
• Muthén, L. K. (2013, November 13). Standardization in BSEM? [Discussion board message]. Retrieved from: http://www.statmodel.com/discussion/messages/9/17396.html?1574717796
   Google Scholar
• Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
   Google Scholar
• Nye, C. D., & Drasgow, F. (2011). Effect size indices for analyses of measurement equivalence: Understanding the practical importance of differences between groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 966–980. doi:10.1037/a0022955.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pokropek, A., Davidov, E., & Schmidt, P. (2019). A monte carlo simulation study to assess the appropriateness of traditional and newer approaches to test for measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26(5), 724–744. doi:10.1080/10705511.2018.1561293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi, D., Song, H., DiStefano, C., Maydeu-Olivares, A., McDaniel, H. L., & Jiang, Z. (2019). Evaluating factorial invariance: An interval estimation approach using Bayesian structural equation modeling. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 54(2), 224–245. doi:10.1080/00273171.2018.1514484.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Drasgow, F. (2004). Examining the effects of differential item (functioning and differential) test functioning on selection decisions: When are statistically significant effects practically important? Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 497–508. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.497.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–90. doi:10.1086/209528.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980, May). Statistically-based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.
   Google Scholar
• Stoll, M. (2006). Kaderbeurteilung II: Persönlichkeitsfragebogen: Skala BB (Belastbarkeit) [Cadre assessment II: Personality questionnaire: Scale BB (stress tolerance)]. Zurich, Switzerland: Department of Social and Business Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of Zurich.
   Google Scholar
• Swiss Armed Forces. (2012). Qualifikations- und Mutationswesen in der Armee [Qualifications and redeployments in the Swiss Armed Forces]. Bern, Switzerland: BBL.
   Google Scholar
• Tracey, T. J. (2016). A note on socially desirable responding. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(2), 224–232. doi:10.1037/cou0000135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winter, S. D., & Depaoli, S. (2020). An illustration of Bayesian approximate measurement invariance with longitudinal data and a small sample size. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 44(4), 371–382. doi:10.1177/0165025419880610.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoon, M., & Lai, M. H. (2018). Testing factorial invariance with unbalanced samples. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(2), 201–213. doi:10.1080/10705511.2017.1387859.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zyphur, M. J., & Oswald, F. L. (2015). Bayesian estimation and inference: A user’s guide. Journal of Management, 41(2), 390–420. doi:10.1177/0149206313501200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar