Literature DB >> 17060838

An essay on measurement and factorial invariance.

William Meredith1, Jeanne A Teresi.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Analysis of subgroups such as different ethnic, language, or education groups selected from among a parent population is common in health disparities research. One goal of such analyses is to examine measurement equivalence, which includes both qualitative review of the meaning of items as well as quantitative examination of different levels of factorial invariance and differential item functioning.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this essay is to review the definitions and assumptions associated with factorial invariance, placing this formulation in the context of bias, fairness, and equity. The connection between the concepts of factorial invariance and item bias (differential item functioning) using a variant of item response theory is discussed. The situations under which different forms of invariance (weak, strong, and strict) are required are discussed.
METHODS: Establishing factorial invariance involves a hierarchy of levels that include tests of weak, strong, and strict invariance. Pattern (metric or weak) factorial invariance implies that the regression slopes are invariant across groups. Pattern invariance requires only invariant factor loadings. Strong factorial invariance implies that the conditional expectation of the response, given the common and specific factors, is invariant across groups. Strong factorial invariance requires that specific factor means (represented as invariant intercepts) also be identical across groups. Strict factorial invariance implies that, in addition, the conditional variance of the response, given the common and specific factors, is invariant across groups. Strict factorial invariance requires that, in addition to equal factor loadings and intercepts, the residual (specific factor plus error variable) variances are equivalent across groups. The concept of measurement invariance that is most closely aligned to that of item response theory considers the latent variable as a common factor measured by manifest variables; the specific factors can be characterized as nuisance variables.
CONCLUSIONS: Invariance of factor loadings across studied groups is required for valid comparisons of scale score or latent variable means. Strong and strict invariance may be less important in the context of basic research in which group differences in specific factors are indicative of individual differences that are important for scientific exploration. However, for most applications in which the aim is to ensure fairness and equity, strict factorial invariance is required. Health disparities research often focuses on self-reported clinical outcomes such as quality of life that are not observed directly. Latent variable models such as factor analyses are central to establishing valid assessment of such outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17060838     DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000245438.73837.89

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  142 in total

1.  Immediate list recall as a measure of short-term episodic memory: insights from the serial position effect and item response theory.

Authors:  Brandon E Gavett; Julie E Horwitz
Journal:  Arch Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2011-12-02       Impact factor: 2.813

2.  Differential age and sex effects in the assessment of major depression: a population-based twin item analysis of the DSM criteria.

Authors:  Steven H Aggen; Kenneth S Kendler; Thomas S Kubarych; Michael C Neale
Journal:  Twin Res Hum Genet       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.587

3.  Further validation of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) in the UK veterinary profession: Rasch analysis.

Authors:  David J Bartram; Julia M Sinclair; David S Baldwin
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-03-02       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Stability of early identified aggressive victim status in elementary school and associations with later mental health problems and functional impairments.

Authors:  Linnea R Burk; Jeffrey M Armstrong; Jong-Hyo Park; Carolyn Zahn-Waxler; Marjorie H Klein; Marilyn J Essex
Journal:  J Abnorm Child Psychol       Date:  2011-02

5.  Occurrences and sources of Differential Item Functioning (DIF) in patient-reported outcome measures: Description of DIF methods, and review of measures of depression, quality of life and general health.

Authors:  Jeanne A Teresi; Mildred Ramirez; Jin-Shei Lai; Stephanie Silver
Journal:  Psychol Sci Q       Date:  2008

6.  Self- and surrogate-reported communication functioning in aphasia.

Authors:  Patrick J Doyle; William D Hula; Shannon N Austermann Hula; Clement A Stone; Julie L Wambaugh; Katherine B Ross; James G Schumacher
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-06-24       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Examining the factor structure of PTSD between male and female veterans in primary care.

Authors:  Brian J Hall; Jon D Elhai; Anouk Grubaugh; Peter Tuerk; Kathryn Magruder
Journal:  J Anxiety Disord       Date:  2012-01-12

8.  Statistical analysis and interpretation in a follow-up study of prelingually deaf children implanted before 5 years of age.

Authors:  Michael J Strube
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Measuring engagement in HIV care: Measurement invariance in three racial/ethnic patient groups.

Authors:  John A Sauceda; Nadra E Lisha; Samantha E Dilworth; Mallory O Johnson; Katerina A Christopoulos; Troy Wood; Kimberly A Koester; W Christopher Mathews; Richard D Moore; Sonia Napravnik; Kenneth H Mayer; Heidi M Crane; Rob J Fredericksen; Michael J Mugavero; Torsten B Neilands
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2020-04-13       Impact factor: 4.267

10.  Psychometric assessment of health-related quality of life and symptom experience in HIV patients treated with antiretroviral therapy.

Authors:  Christophe Lalanne; Andrew R Armstrong; Susan Herrmann; Sophie Le Coeur; Patrizia Carrieri; Olivier Chassany; Martin Duracinsky
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-12-07       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.