Finding Clusters of Groups with Measurement Invariance: Unraveling Intercept Non-Invariance with Mixture Multigroup Factor Analysis

References

• Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In B. N. Pet Rov & F. Caski (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international symposium on information theory (pp. 267–281). Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Some methods for respecifying measurement models to obtain unidimensional construct measurement. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 453–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378201900407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16, 397–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Multiple-group factor analysis alignment. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21, 495–508. 4 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.919210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, D. J. (2007). Observations on the use of growth mixture models in psychological research. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 757–786. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701710338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beierlein, C., Kuntz, A., & Davidov, E. (2016). Universalism, conservation and attitudes toward minority groups. Social Science Research, 58, 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.02.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boer, D., Hanke, K., & He, J. (2018). On detecting systematic measurement error in cross-cultural research: A review and critical reflection on equivalence and invariance tests. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49, 713–734. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117749042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bollen, K. A., Kirby, J. B., Curran, P. J., Paxton, P. M., & Chen, F. (2007). Latent variable models under misspecification: Two-stage least squares (2SLS) and maximum likelihood (ML) estimators. Sociological Methods & Research, 36, 48–86. 1 https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124107301947
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browne, M. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 111–150. 1 https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3601_05
   Web of Science ®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 equivalence. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466. 3 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne, B. M., & Van de Vijver, F. J. (2010). Testing for measurement and structural equivalence in large-scale cross-cultural studies: Addressing the issue of nonequivalence. International Journal of Testing, 10(2), 107–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305051003637306
   Google Scholar
• Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ceulemans, E., & Kiers, H. A. (2006). Selecting among three‐mode principal component models of different types and complexities: A numerical convex hull based method. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 59, 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711005X64817
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ceulemans, E., & Van Mechelen, I. (2005). Hierarchical classes models for three-way three-mode binary data: Interrelations and model selection. Psychometrika, 70, 461–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-003-1067-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
   Web of Science ®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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013193
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. https://doi.org/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, 665–686. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124117701478
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidov, E., Dülmer, H., Schlüter, E., Schmidt, P., & Meuleman, B. (2012). Using a multilevel structural equation modeling approach to explain cross-cultural measurement noninvariance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 558–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022112438397
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Roover, K., Vermunt, J., & Ceulemans, E. (2020). Mixture multigroup factor analysis for unraveling factor loading non-invariance across many groups. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000355
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• De Roover, K., & Vermunt, J. K. (2019). On the exploratory road to unraveling factor loading non-invariance: A new multigroup rotation approach. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26, 905–923. 6 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1590778
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan, C. V., Oort, F. J., Stoel, R. D., & Wicherts, J. M. (2009). Testing measurement invariance in the target rotated multigroup exploratory factor model. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 295–314. 2 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510902751416
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299. 3 https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerbing, D. W., & Hamilton, J. G. (1996). Viability of exploratory factor analysis as a precursor to confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 3, 62–72. 1 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519609540030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greiff, S., & Scherer, R. (2018). Still comparing apples with oranges? Some thoughts on the principles and practices of measurement invariance testing. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 34, 141–144. 3 https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000487
   Web of Science ®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. 4 https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0704_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hubert, L., & Arabie, P. (1985). Comparing partitions. Journal of Classification, 2, 193–218. 1 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01908075
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inglehart, R. F., Basanez, M., Basanez, M., & Moreno, A. (1998). Human values and beliefs: A cross-cultural sourcebook. University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36, 409–426. 4 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291366
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, E. S., & Willson, V. L. (2014). Measurement invariance across groups in latent growth modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21, 408–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915374.
   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, 524–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1304822
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, E. S., Joo, S. H., Lee, P., Wang, Y., & Stark, S. (2016). Measurement invariance testing across between-level latent classes using multilevel factor mixture modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23, 870–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2016.1196108
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawley, D. N., & Maxwell, A. E. (1962). Factor analysis as a statistical method. The Statistician, 12, 209–229. 3 https://doi.org/10.2307/2986915
   Google Scholar
• Lubke, G., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Performance of factor mixture models as a function of model size, covariate effects, and class-specific parameters. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510709336735
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lubke, G. H., & Muthén, B. (2005). Investigating population heterogeneity with factor mixture models. Psychological Methods, 10, 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.1.21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukočienė, O., Varriale, R., & Vermunt, J. K. (2010). The simultaneous decision(s) about the number of lower‐and higher‐level classes in multilevel latent class analysis. Sociological Methodology, 40, 247–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9531.2010.01231.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeish, D., & Harring, J. R. (2017). The Effect of Model Misspecification on Growth Mixture Model Class Enumeration. Journal of Classification, 34, 223–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00357-017-9233-y
   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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.3.490
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84–99. 1 https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Costa, P. T., Jr, Bond, M. H., & Paunonen, S. V. (1996). Evaluating replicability of factors in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus Procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 552–566. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.552
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLachlan, G., & Peel, D. (2000). Finite mixture models. Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Meade, A., Johnson, E., & Braddy, P. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 568–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568
   Google Scholar
• Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543. 4 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294825
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muthén, B. O., & Asparouhov, T. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: A more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17, 313–335. 3 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026802
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muthén, B. O., & Asparouhov, T. (2013). BSEM measurement invariance analysis. Mplus Web Notes, 17, 1–48. https://www.statmodel.com/examples/webnotes/webnote17.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2005). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables: User’s guide. Muthén & Muthén.
   Google Scholar
• Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 535–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rutkowski, L., & Svetina, D. (2014). Assessing the hypothesis of measurement invariance in the context of large-scale international surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74, 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413498257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz, S. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5, 137–182. 2–3 https://doi.org/10.1163/156913306778667357
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344136
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sörbom, D. (1974). A general method for studying differences in factor means and factor structure between groups. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 27, 229–239. 2 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1974.tb00543.x
   Google Scholar
• Sörbom, D. (1989). Model modification. Psychometrika, 54, 371–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294623
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Drasgow, F. (2006). Detecting differential item functioning with confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Toward a unified strategy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1292–1306. 6 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1292
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinley, D. (2004). Properties of the Hubert-Arable adjusted rand index. Psychological Methods, 9, 386–396. 3 https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.3.386
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tay, L., Diener, E., Drasgow, F., & Vermunt, J. K. (2011). Multilevel mixed-measurement IRT analysis: An explication and application to self-reported emotions across the world. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 177–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110372674.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tein, J. Y., Coxe, S., & Cham, H. (2013). Statistical power to detect the correct number of classes in latent profile analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20, 640–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.824781
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tucker, L. R. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies ( Personnel Research Section Report No. 984). Department of the Army.
   Google Scholar
• Tueller, S. J., Drotar, S., & Lubke, G. H. (2011). Addressing the problem of switched class labels in latent variable mixture model simulation studies. Structural Equation Modeling, 18, 110–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2011.534695
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vermunt, J. K. (2010). Latent class modeling with covariates: Two improved three-step approaches. Political Analysis, 18, 450–469. 4 https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpq025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2013b). Technical guide for latent GOLD 5.0: Basic, advanced, and syntax. Statistical Innovations Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2016). Upgrade manual for latent GOLD 5.1. Statistical Innovations Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Wilderjans, T. F., Ceulemans, E., & Meers, K. (2013). CHull: A generic convex hull based model selection method. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1–15. 1 https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0238-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods, C. M. (2009). Evaluation of MIMIC model methods for DIF testing with comparison to two-group analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170802620121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar