Why Full, Partial, or Approximate Measurement Invariance Are Not a Prerequisite for Meaningful and Valid Group Comparisons

References

• Arts, I., Fang, Q., van de Schoot, R., & Meitinger, K. (2021). Approximate measurement invariance of willingness to sacrifice for the environment across 30 countries: The importance of prior distributions and their visualization. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 624032. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.624032
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asparouhov, T., Muthén, B. (2023). Penalized structural equation models. Technical report. Retrieved March 3, 2023, from https://www.statmodel.com/download/PML.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Multiple-group factor analysis alignment. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21, 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.919210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avvisati, F. (2020). The measure of socio-economic status in PISA: A review and some suggested improvements. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 8, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-020-00086-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Battauz, M. (2020). Regularized estimation of the four-parameter logistic model. Psych, 2, 269–278. https://doi.org/10.3390/psych2040020
   Google Scholar
• Bauer, D. J., Belzak, W. C., & Cole, V. T. (2020). Simplifying the assessment of measurement invariance over multiple background variables: Using regularized moderated nonlinear factor analysis to detect differential item functioning. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27, 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1642754
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berk, R., Brown, L., Buja, A., George, E., Pitkin, E., Zhang, K., & Zhao, L. (2014). Misspecified mean function regression: Making good use of regression models that are wrong. Sociological Methods & Research, 43, 422–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114526375
   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
• Boos, D. D., & Stefanski, L. A. (2013). Essential statistical inference. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4818-1
   Google Scholar
• Borgstede, M., & Eggert, F. (2023). Squaring the circle: From latent variables to theory-based measurement. Theory & Psychology, 33, 118–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543221127985
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borsboom, D. (2008). Latent variable theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 6, 25–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366360802035497
   Google Scholar
• Brandmaier, A. M., & Jacobucci, R. C. (2023). Machine-learning approaches to structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.
   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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camilli, G. (1993). The case against item bias detection techniques based on internal criteria: Do item bias procedures obscure test fairness issues? In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning: Theory and practice (pp. 397–417). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Camilli, G. (2006). Test fairness. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 221–256). Praeger Publications.
   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
• Chen, P. Y., Wu, W., Garnier-Villarreal, M., Kite, B. A., & Jia, F. (2020). Testing measurement invariance with ordinal missing data: A comparison of estimators and missing data techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 55, 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2019.1608799
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Y., Li, C., & Xu, G. (2021). DIF statistical inference and detection without knowing anchoring items. arXiv. arXiv:2110.11112. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2110.11112
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, A. S., & Bolt, D. M. (2005). A mixture model analysis of differential item functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 42, 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2005.00007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole, V. T., Bauer, D. J., & Hussong, A. M. (2019). Assessing the robustness of mixture models to measurement noninvariance. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 54, 882–905. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2019.1596781
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidov, E., & Meuleman, B. (2019). Measurement invariance analysis using multiple group confirmatory factor analysis and alignment optimisation. In F. J. van de Vijver (Ed.), Invariance analyses in large-scale studies (pp. 13–20). OECD Education. Working Papers No. 201. https://doi.org/10.1787/254738dd-en
   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. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, P. L. (2014). Data analysis and approximate models. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b17146
   Google Scholar
• De Boeck, P. (2008). Random item IRT models. Psychometrika, 73, 533–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9092-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Jong, M. G., Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Fox, J. P. (2007). Relaxing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research using a hierarchical IRT model. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 260–278. https://doi.org/10.1086/518532
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Los Reyes, A., Tyrell, F., Watts, A. L., & Asmundson, G. (2022). Conceptual, methodological, and measurement factors that disqualify use of measurement invariance techniques to detect informant discrepancies in youth mental health assessments. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 931296. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.931296
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Roover, K. (2021). Finding clusters of groups with measurement invariance: Unraveling intercept non-invariance with mixture multigroup factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 28, 663–683. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1866577
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Roover, K., Vermunt, J. K., & Ceulemans, E. (2022). Mixture multigroup factor analysis for unraveling factor loading noninvariance across many groups. Psychological Methods, 27, 281–306. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000355
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Urso, E. D., Maassen, E., van Assen, M. A., Nuijten, M. B., De Roover, K., & Wicherts, J. (2022). The dire disregard of measurement invariance testing in psychological science. PsyArXiv, July 26. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/n3f5u
   Google Scholar
• Edelsbrunner, P. A. (2022). A model and its fit lie in the eye of the beholder: Long live the sum score. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 986767. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.986767
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eid, M. (2000). A multitrait-multimethod model with minimal assumptions. Psychometrika, 65, 241–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294377
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eid, M. (2019). Multigroup and multilevel latent class analysis. In F. J. van de Vijver (Ed.), Invariance analyses in large-scale studies (pp. 70–90). OECD Education. Working Papers No. 201. https://doi.org/10.1787/254738dd-en
   Google Scholar
• El Masri, Y. H., & Andrich, D. (2020). The trade-off between model fit, invariance, and validity: The case of PISA science assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 33, 174–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2020.1732384
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, J. L. (1993). Subpopulation invariance of patterns in covariance matrices. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 46, 231–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1993.tb01014.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finch, H. (2022). Applied regularization methods for the social sciences. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780367809645
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, R., Karl, J., & Luczak-Roesch, M. (2022). Why equivalence and invariance are both different and essential for scientific studies of culture: A discussion of mapping processes and theoretical implications. PsyArXiv, September 3. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/fst9k
   Google Scholar
• Flake, J. K., Pek, J., & Hehman, E. (2017). Construct validation in social and personality research: Current practice and recommendations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 370–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617693063
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, J.-P., & Verhagen, A. J. (2010). Random item effects modeling for cross-national survey data. In E. Davidov, P. Schmidt, & J. Billiet (Eds.), Cross-cultural analysis: Methods and applications (pp. 461–482). Routledge Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Funder, D. (2020). Misgivings: Some thoughts about “measurement invariance”. Retrieved January 31, 2020, from https://bit.ly/3caKdNN
   Google Scholar
• Geiser, C. (2020). Longitudinal structural equation modeling with Mplus: A latent state-trait perspective. Guilford Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Geminiani, E., Marra, G., & Moustaki, I. (2021). Single-and multiple-group penalized factor analysis: A trust-region algorithm approach with integrated automatic multiple tuning parameter selection. Psychometrika, 86, 65–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-021-09751-8
   PubMed 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. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000487
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He, J., Van de Vijver, F. J., Fetvadjiev, V. H., de Carmen Dominguez Espinosa, A., Adams, B., Alonso–Arbiol, I., Aydinli–Karakulak, A., Buzea, C., Dimitrova, R., Fortin, A., Hapunda, G., Ma, S., Sargautyte, R., Sim, S., Schachner, M. K., Suryani, A., Zeinoun, P., & Zhang, R. (2017). On enhancing the cross–cultural comparability of Likert–scale personality and value measures: A comparison of common procedures. European Journal of Personality, 31, 642–657. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2132
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (Eds.). (1993). Differential item functioning: Theory and practice. Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203357811
   Google Scholar
• Huang, P. H. (2018). A penalized likelihood method for multi‐group structural equation modelling. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 71, 499–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12130
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber, P. J. (1964). Robust estimation of a location parameter. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 35, 73–101. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177703732
   Google Scholar
• Jacobucci, R., Brandmaier, A. M., & Kievit, R. A. (2019). A practical guide to variable selection in structural equation modeling by using regularized multiple-indicators, multiple-causes models. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2, 55–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919826527
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jak, S. (2019). Cross-level invariance in multilevel factor models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26, 607–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1534205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jak, S., & Jorgensen, T. D. (2017). Relating measurement invariance, cross-level invariance, and multilevel reliability. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1640. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01640
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jak, S., Oort, F. J., & Dolan, C. V. (2013). A test for cluster bias: Detecting violations of measurement invariance across clusters in multilevel data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20, 265–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.769392
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kampen, J., & Swyngedouw, M. (2000). The ordinal controversy revisited. Quality and Quantity, 34, 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004785723554
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50, 1–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kankaraš, M., & Moors, G. (2014). Analysis of cross-cultural comparability of PISA 2009 scores. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113511297
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Koc, P., & Pokropek, A. (2022). Accounting for cross-country-cross-time variations in measurement invariance testing. A case of political participation. Survey Research Methods, 16, 79–96. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2022.v16i1.7909
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2014). Test equating, scaling, and linking. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0317-7
   Google Scholar
• Lacko, D., Čeněk, J., Točík, J., Avsec, A., Đorđević, V., Genc, A., Haka, F., Šakotić-Kurbalija, J., Mohorić, T., Neziri, I., & Subotić, S. (2022). The necessity of testing measurement invariance in cross-cultural research: Potential bias in cross-cultural comparisons with individualism–collectivism self-report scales. Cross-Cultural Research, 56, 228–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/10693971211068971
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, S. S., & von Davier, M. (2020). Improving measurement properties of the PISA home possessions scale through partial invariance modeling. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 62, 55–83. https://bit.ly/3FRN6Qf
   Google Scholar
• Leitgöb, H., Seddig, D., Asparouhov, T., Behr, D., Davidov, E., De Roover, K., Jak, S., Meitinger, K., Menold, N., Muthén, B., Rudnev, M., Schmidt, P., & van de Schoot, R. (2023). Measurement invariance in the social sciences: Historical development, methodological challenges, state of the art, and future perspectives. Social Science Research, 110, 102805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2022.102805
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lek, K., Oberski, D., Davidov, E., Cieciuch, J., Seddig, D., & Schmidt, P. (2019). Approximate measurement invariance. In T. P. Johnson, B.-E. Pennell, I. A. L. Stoop, & B. Dorer (Eds.), Advances in comparative survey methods: Multinational, multiregional, and multicultural contexts (3MC) (pp. 911–928). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118884997.ch41
   Google Scholar
• Liang, X., & Jacobucci, R. (2020). Regularized structural equation modeling to detect measurement bias: Evaluation of lasso, adaptive lasso, and elastic net. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27, 722–734. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1693273
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.
   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: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13, 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1301_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lomazzi, V. (2021). Can we compare solidarity across Europe? What, why, when, and how to assess exact and approximate equivalence of first-and second-order factor models. Frontiers in Political Science, 3, 641698. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.641698
   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: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510709336735
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luong, R., & Flake, J. K. (2022). Measurement invariance testing using confirmatory factor analysis and alignment optimization: A tutorial for transparent analysis planning and reporting. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000441
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magis, D., & De Boeck, P. (2011). Identification of differential item functioning in multiple-group settings: A multivariate outlier detection approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46, 733–755. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.606757
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maxwell, S. E., Delaney, H. D., & Kelley, K. (2017). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315642956
   Google Scholar
• Meitinger, K. (2017). Necessary but insufficient: Why measurement invariance tests need online probing as a complementary tool. Public Opinion Quarterly, 81, 447–472. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfx009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meitinger, K., Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., & Braun, M. (2020). Measurement invariance: Testing for it and explaining why it is absent. Survey Research Methods, 14, 345–349. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2020.v14i4.7655
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellenbergh, G. J. (1989). Item bias and item response theory. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 127–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90002-5
   Google Scholar
• Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294825
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meredith, W., & Teresi, J. A. (2006). An essay on measurement and factorial invariance. Medical Care, 44, S69–S77. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41219507
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meuleman, B., Żółtak, T., Pokropek, A., Davidov, E., Muthén, B., Oberski, D. L., Billiet, J., & Schmidt, P. (2022). Why measurement invariance is important in comparative research. A response to Welzel et al. (2021). Sociological Methods & Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241221091755
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millsap, R. E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203821961
   Google Scholar
• Molenaar, D., & Borsboom, D. (2013). The formalization of fairness: Issues in testing for measurement invariance using subtest scores. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19, 223–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2013.767628
   Google Scholar
• Monseur, C., & Berezner, A. (2007). The computation of equating errors in international surveys in education. Journal of Applied Measurement, 8, 323–335. https://bit.ly/2WDPeqD
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morgan, S. L., & Winship, C. (2015). Counterfactuals and causal inference. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107587991
   Google Scholar
• Mulaik, S. A. (2009). Foundations of factor analysis. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b15851
   Google Scholar
• Muthén, B. (1984). A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical, and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika, 49, 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2014). IRT studies of many groups: The alignment method. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 978. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00978
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2018). Recent methods for the study of measurement invariance with many groups: Alignment and random effects. Sociological Methods & Research, 47, 637–664. https://doi.org/10.1177/004912411770148
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noel, Y., & Dauvier, B. (2007). A beta item response model for continuous bounded responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31, 47–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621605287691
   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, 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpt014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pokropek, A., & Pokropek, E. (2022). Deep neural networks for detecting statistical model misspecifications. The case of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 29, 394–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2021.2010083
   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, 724–744. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1561293
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pokropek, A., Lüdtke, O., & Robitzsch, A. (2020). An extension of the invariance alignment method for scale linking. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 62, 305–334. https://bit.ly/2UEp9GH
   Google Scholar
• Protzko, J. (2022). Invariance: What does measurement invariance allow us to claim? PsyArXiv, April 18. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/r8yka
   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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revuelta, J., Hidalgo, B., & Alcazar-Córcoles, M. Á. (2022). Bayesian estimation and testing of a beta factor model for bounded continuous variables. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 57, 57–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2020.1805582
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robitzsch, A. (2020a). Lp loss functions in invariance alignment and Haberman linking with few or many groups. Stats, 3, 246–283. https://doi.org/10.3390/stats3030019
   Google Scholar
• Robitzsch, A. (2020b). Why ordinal variables can (almost) always be treated as continuous variables: Clarifying assumptions of robust continuous and ordinal factor analysis estimation methods. Frontiers in Education, 5, 589965. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.589965
   Google Scholar
• Robitzsch, A. (2021). Robust and nonrobust linking of two groups for the Rasch model with balanced and unbalanced random DIF: A comparative simulation study and the simultaneous assessment of standard errors and linking errors with resampling techniques. Symmetry, 13, 2198. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13112198
   Google Scholar
• Robitzsch, A. (2022). Estimation methods of the multiple-group one-dimensional factor model: Implied identification constraints in the violation of measurement invariance. Axioms, 11, 119. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms11030119
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robitzsch, A., & Lüdtke, O. (2019). Linking errors in international large-scale assessments: Calculation of standard errors for trend estimation. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 26, 444–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1433633
   Google Scholar
• Robitzsch, A., & Lüdtke, O. (2020). A review of different scaling approaches under full invariance, partial invariance, and noninvariance for cross-sectional country comparisons in large-scale assessments. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 62, 233–279. https://bit.ly/3ezBB05
   Google Scholar
• Robitzsch, A., & Lüdtke, O. (2022). Mean comparisons of many groups in the presence of DIF: An evaluation of linking and concurrent scaling approaches. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 47, 36–68. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986211017479
   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
• Ryu, E. (2014). Factorial invariance in multilevel confirmatory factor analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67, 172–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryu, E., & Mehta, P. (2017). Multilevel factorial invariance in n-level structural equation modeling (nSEM). Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 24, 936–959. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1324311
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schauberger, G., & Mair, P. (2020). A regularization approach for the detection of differential item functioning in generalized partial credit models. Behavior Research Methods, 52, 279–294. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01224-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schroeders, U., & Gnambs, T. (2020). Degrees of freedom in multigroup confirmatory factor analyses. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36, 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000500
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seddig, D., & Leitgöb, H. (2018). Approximate measurement invariance and longitudinal confirmatory factor analysis: Concept and application with panel data. Survey Research Methods, 12, 29–41. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2018.v12i1.7210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seddig, D., Maskileyson, D., & Davidov, E. (2020). The comparability of measures in the ageism module of the fourth round of the European Social Survey, 2008–2009. Survey Research Methods, 14, 351–364. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2020.v14i4.7369
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 159–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294572
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siemsen, E., & Bollen, K. A. (2007). Least absolute deviation estimation in structural equation modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 36, 227–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124107301946
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Somaraju, A. V., Nye, C. D., & Olenick, J. (2022). A review of measurement equivalence in organizational research: What’s old, what’s new, what’s next? Organizational Research Methods, 25, 741–785. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281211056524
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78–107. https://doi.org/10.1086/209528
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinmetz, H. (2013). Analyzing observed composite differences across groups: Is partial measurement invariance enough? Methodology, 9, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000049
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steyer, R. (1989). Models of classical psychometric test theory as stochastic measurement models: representation, uniqueness, meaningfulness, identifiability, and testability. Methodika, 3, 25–60. https://bit.ly/3Js7N3S
   Google Scholar
• Steyer, R., Mayer, A., Geiser, C., & Cole, D. A. (2015). A theory of states and traits—Revised. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 11, 71–98. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153719
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svetina, D., Rutkowski, L., & Rutkowski, D. (2020). Multiple-group invariance with categorical outcomes using updated guidelines: an illustration using Mplus and the lavaan/semtools packages. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27, 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1602776
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tutz, G., & Schauberger, G. (2015). A penalty approach to differential item functioning in Rasch models. Psychometrika, 80, 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-013-9377-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uher, J. (2021). Psychometrics is not measurement: Unraveling a fundamental misconception in quantitative psychology and the complex network of its underlying fallacies. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 41, 58–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000176
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van de Schoot, R., Kluytmans, A., Tummers, L., Lugtig, P., Hox, J., & Muthén, B. (2013). Facing off with Scylla and Charybdis: A comparison of scalar, partial, and the novel possibility of approximate measurement invariance. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 770. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00770
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 486–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.686740
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van de Vijver, F. J. (2018). Towards an integrated framework of bias in noncognitive assessment in international large‐scale studies: Challenges and prospects. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 37, 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12227
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Linden, W. J. (1994). Fundamental measurement and the fundamentals of Rasch measurement. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Objective measurement: theory into practice (Vol. 2, pp. 3–24). Ablex.
   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, 4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VanderWeele, T. J. (2022). Constructed measures and causal inference: Towards a new model of measurement for psychosocial constructs. Epidemiology, 33, 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001434
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Davier, M., & von Davier, A. A. (2007). A unified approach to IRT scale linking and scale transformations. Methodology, 3, 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.3.3.115
   Google Scholar
• Wang, W., Liu, Y., & Liu, H. (2022). Testing differential item functioning without predefined anchor items using robust regression. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 47, 666–692. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986221109208
   Google Scholar
• Welzel, C., & Inglehart, R. F. (2016). Misconceptions of measurement equivalence: Time for a paradigm shift. Comparative Political Studies, 49, 1068–1094. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414016628275
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welzel, C., Brunkert, L., Kruse, S., & Inglehart, R. F. (2021). Non-invariance? An overstated problem with misconceived causes. Sociological Methods & Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124121995521
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welzel, C., Kruse, S., & Brunkert, L. (2022). Against the mainstream: On the limitations of non-invariance diagnostics: Response to Fischer et al. and Meuleman et al. Sociological Methods & Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241221091754
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, H. (1982). Maximum likelihood estimation of misspecified models. Econometrica, 50, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912526
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wicherts, J. M. (2016). The importance of measurement invariance in neurocognitive ability testing. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 30, 1006–1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1205136
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wicherts, J. M., Dolan, C. V., Hessen, D. J., Oosterveld, P., van Baal, G. C. M., Boomsma, D. I., & Span, M. M. (2004). Are intelligence tests measurement invariant over time? Investigating the nature of the Flynn effect. Intelligence, 32, 509–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2004.07.002
   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, 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025419880610
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, H. (2010). [An empirical Bayesian approach to misspecified covariance structures] [Doctoral dissertation]. Ohio State University. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1282058097
   Google Scholar
• Wu, H., & Browne, M. W. (2015). Quantifying adventitious error in a covariance structure as a random effect. Psychometrika, 80, 571–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-015-9451-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zieger, L., Sims, S., & Jerrim, J. (2019). Comparing teachers’ job satisfaction across countries: A multiple‐pairwise measurement invariance approach. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 38, 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12254
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zitzmann, S., & Loreth, L. (2021). Regarding an “almost anything goes” attitude toward methods in psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 612570. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.612570
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar