Literature DB >> 30242617

Impact of error structure misspecification when testing measurement invariance and latent-factor mean difference using MIMIC and multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis.

Seang-Hwane Joo1, Eun Sook Kim2.   

Abstract

When multiple groups are compared, the error variance-covariance structure is not always invariant between groups. In this study we investigated the impacts of misspecified error structures on testing measurement invariance and the latent-factor mean difference between groups. A Monte Carlo study was conducted to examine how measurement invariance and latent mean difference tests were affected when heterogeneous error structures were misspecified as being invariant across groups. Multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) and the multiple-indicator multiple-causes model (MIMIC) were employed in the present study. The rejection rates of both metric and strict invariance in measurement invariance testing, as well as the estimation accuracy and statistical inference of the factor mean difference, were investigated under error structure misspecification. In addition, sensitivity of the model fit indices to error structure misspecification was examined. Overall, misspecification of the error structure affected testing for metric but not scalar invariance. Metric invariance was often rejected, especially when error covariance in one group was ignored. In contrast, MGCFA and MIMIC performed comparatively well at detecting latent-factor mean differences between groups, with acceptable power and well-controlled Type I errors. The practical implications of these findings are discussed, as well as recommendations.

Keywords:  Error structure misspecification; MGCFA; MIMIC; Measurement invariance; Model fit sensitivity

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30242617     DOI: 10.3758/s13428-018-1124-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Res Methods        ISSN: 1554-351X


  4 in total

1.  Is Differential Noneffortful Responding Associated With Type I Error in Measurement Invariance Testing?

Authors:  Joseph A Rios
Journal:  Educ Psychol Meas       Date:  2021-02-12       Impact factor: 3.088

2.  Scale length does matter: Recommendations for measurement invariance testing with categorical factor analysis and item response theory approaches.

Authors:  E Damiano D'Urso; Kim De Roover; Jeroen K Vermunt; Jesper Tijmstra
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2021-12-15

3.  Combined Approach to Multi-Informant Data Using Latent Factors and Latent Classes: Trifactor Mixture Model.

Authors:  Eunsook Kim; Nathaniel von der Embse
Journal:  Educ Psychol Meas       Date:  2020-11-27       Impact factor: 3.088

4.  Examining the factor structure and discriminative utility of the Infant Behavior Questionnaire-Revised in infant siblings of autistic children.

Authors:  Sooyeon Sung; Angela Fenoglio; Jason J Wolff; Robert T Schultz; Kelly N Botteron; Stephen R Dager; Annette M Estes; Heather C Hazlett; Lonnie Zwaigenbaum; Joseph Piven; Jed T Elison
Journal:  Child Dev       Date:  2022-04-29
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.