Detecting Measurement Noninvariance with Continuous Indicators Using Three Different Statistical Methods under the Framework of Latent Variable Modeling

References

• Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397–438.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Multiple-group factor analysis alignment. Structural Equation Modeling, 21, 1–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 57, 289–283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Brannick, M. T. (1995). Critical comments on applying covariance structure modeling. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 201–213.
   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 invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne, B. M., & van de Vijve, F. J. (2017). The maximum likelihood alignment approach to testing for approximate measurement invariance: A paradigmatic cross-cultural application. Psicothema, 29, 535–551.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2012). A direct comparison approach for testing measurement invariance. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 167–198.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1998). Cross-cultural comparisons using non-invariant measurement items. Applied Behavioral Science Review, 6, 93–11.
   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.
   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, 233–225.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidov, E., Meuleman, B., Cieciuch, J., Schmidt, P., & Billiet, J. (2014). Measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 55–75.
   Web of Science ®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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiStefano, C. (2002). The impact of categorization with confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 327–346.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finch, W. H., & French, B. F. (2008b). Comparing factor loadings in exploratory factor analysis: A new randomization test. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 7, 376–384.
   Google Scholar
• Finch, W. H., & French, B. F. (2008a). Using exploratory factor analysis for locating invariant referents in factor invariance studies. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 7, 223–233.
   Google Scholar
• Flake, J. K., & McCoach, D. B. (2018). An investigation of the alignment method with polytomous indicators under conditions of partial measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 25, 56–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flowers, C. P., Raju, N. S., & Oshima, T. C. (2002). A comparison of measurement equivalence methods based on confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
   Google Scholar
• French, B. G., & Finch, W. H. (2008). Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis: Locating the invariant referent sets. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 96–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herzog, W., Boomsma, A., & Reinecke, S. (2007). The model-size effect on traditional and modified tests of covariance structures. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 361–339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jang, S., Kim, E. S., Cao, C., Allen, T. D., Cooper, C. L., Lapierre, L. M., O'Driscoll, M. P., Sanchez J. I., Spector, P. E., Poelmans, S. A. Y, Abarca, N., Alexandrova, M., Antoniou, A., Beham, B., Brough, P., Carikci, I., Ferreiro, P., Fraile, G., Sabine Geurts, S., Kinnunen, U., et al. (2017). Measurement invariance of the satisfaction with life scale across 26 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48, 560–576.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jennrich, R. I. (2006). Rotation to simple loadings using component loss functions: The oblique case. Psychometrika, 71, 173–191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, E. C., Meade, A. W., & DuVernet, A. M. (2009). The role of referent indicators in tests of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 642–657.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36, 409–426.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jung, E., & Yoon, M. (2016). Comparisons of three empirical methods for partial factorial invariance: Forward, backward, and factor-ratio tests. Structural Equation Modeling, 23, 1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelloway, E. K. (1995). Structural equation modeling in perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 215–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, E. S., & Yoon, M. (2011). Testing measurement invariance: A comparison of multiple-group categorical CFA and IRT. Structural Equation Modeling , 18, 212–228.
   Web of Science ®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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lomazzi, V. (2018). Using alignment optimization to test the measurement invariance of gender role attitudes in 59 countries. Methods, Data, Analyses, 12, 77–103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopez Rivas, G. E., Stark, S., & Chernyshenko, O. S. (2009). The effects of referent item parameters on differential item functioning detection using the free baseline likelihood ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 251–265.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First-and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 562–582.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meade, A. W., & Lautenschlager, G. J. (2004). A comparison of item response theory and confirmatory factor analytic methodologies for establishing measurement equivalence/invariance. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 361–388.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meade, A. W., & Wright, N. A. (2012). Solving the measurement invariance anchor item problem in item response theory. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1016–1031.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellenbergh, G. J. (1989). Item bias and item response theory. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 127–143.
   Google Scholar
• Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millsap, R. E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Millsap, R. E., & Meredith, W. (2007). Factorial invariance: Historical perspectives and new problems. In R. Cudeck & R. C. MacCallum (Eds.), Factor analysis at 100: Historical developments and future directions (p. 131–152). Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Moshagen, M. (2012). The model size effect in SEM: Inflated goodness-off it statistics are due to the size of the covariance matrix. Structural Equation Modeling, 19, 86–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munck, I., Barber, C., & Torney-Purta, J. (2018). Measurement invariance in comparing attitudes toward immigrants among youth across Europe in 1999 and 2009: The alignment method applied to IEA CIVED and ICCS. Sociological Methods & Research, 47, 687–728.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: A more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17, 313–335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nye, C., Bradburn, J., Olenick, J., Bialko, C., & Drasgow, F. (2019). How big are my effects? Examining the magnitude of effect sizes in studies of measurement equivalence. Organizational Research Methods, 22, 678–709.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberski, D. L. (2014). Evaluating sensitivity of parameters of interest to measurement invariance in latent variable models. Political Analysis, 22, 45–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90.
   Google Scholar
• Raykov, T., Dimitrov, D. M., Marcoulides, G. A., Li, T., & Menold, N. (2018). Examining measurement invariance and differential item functioning with discrete latent construct indicators: A note on a multiple testing procedure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 78, 343–352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raykov, T., Marcoulides, G. A., Harrison, M., & Zhang, M. (2019). On the dependability of a popular procedure for studying measurement invariance: A cause for concern? Structural Equation Modeling, 27, 649–656.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raykov, T., Marcoulides, G. A., & Li, C.-H. (2012). Measurement invariance for latent constructs in multiple populations: A critical view and refocus. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72, 954–974.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raykov, T., Marcoulides, G. A., & Millsap, R. E. (2013). Factorial invariance in multiple populations: A multiple testing procedure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73, 713–727.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor-analysis and item response theory – two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 552–566.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmitt, N., & Kuljanin, G. (2008). Measurement invariance: Review of practice and implications. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 210–222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi, D., Lee, T., & Terry, R. A. (2018). Revisiting the model size effect in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 25, 21–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi, D., Song, H., Liao, X., Terry, R., & Snyder, L. A. (2017). Bayesian SEM for specification search problems in testing factorial invariance. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 52, 430–444.
   PubMed 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.
   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, 78–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinberg, L. (2001). The consequences of pairing questions: Context effects in personality measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 332–342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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, 4–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whittaker, T. A. (2012). Using the modification index and standardized expected parameter change for model modification. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80, 26–44.
   Web of Science ®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. Bryant, M. Windle, & S. G. West (Eds.), The science of prevention: Methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research (pp. 281–324). American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, V. S., Jones, L. V., & Tukey, J. W. (1999). Controlling error in multiple comparisons, with examples from state-to-state differences in educational achievement. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 42–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods, C. M. (2009). Empirical selection of anchors for tests of differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 42–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoon, M., & Millsap, R. E. (2007). Detecting violations of factorial invariance using data-based specification searches: A Monte Carlo study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 435–463.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuan, K. H., Tian, Y., & Yanagihara, H. (2015). Empirical correction to the likelihood ratio statistic for structural equation modeling with many variables. Psychometrika, 80, 379–405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar