Literature DB >> 34565813

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

Joseph A Rios1.   

Abstract

Low test-taking effort as a validity threat is common when examinees perceive an assessment context to have minimal personal value. Prior research has shown that in such contexts, subgroups may differ in their effort, which raises two concerns when making subgroup mean comparisons. First, it is unclear how differential effort could influence evaluations of scale property equivalence. Second, if attaining full scalar invariance, the degree to which differential effort can bias subgroup mean comparisons is unknown. To address these issues, a simulation study was conducted to examine the influence of differential noneffortful responding (NER) on evaluations of measurement invariance and latent mean comparisons. Results showed that as differential rates of NER grew, increased Type I errors of measurement invariance were observed only at the metric invariance level, while no negative effects were apparent for configural or scalar invariance. When full scalar invariance was correctly attained, differential NER led to bias of mean score comparisons as large as 0.18 standard deviations with a differential NER rate of 7%. These findings suggest that test users should evaluate and document potential differential NER prior to both conducting measurement quality analyses and reporting disaggregated subgroup mean performance.
© The Author(s) 2021.

Entities:  

Keywords:  measurement invariance; noneffortful responding; subgroup comparisons; test-taking effort; validity

Year:  2021        PMID: 34565813      PMCID: PMC8377344          DOI: 10.1177/0013164421990429

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Educ Psychol Meas        ISSN: 0013-1644            Impact factor:   3.088


  9 in total

1.  Detecting differential item functioning with confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: toward a unified strategy.

Authors:  Stephen Stark; Oleksandr S Chernyshenko; Fritz Drasgow
Journal:  J Appl Psychol       Date:  2006-11

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

Authors:  Seang-Hwane Joo; Eun Sook Kim
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2019-12

3.  Sample Size Requirements for Structural Equation Models: An Evaluation of Power, Bias, and Solution Propriety.

Authors:  Erika J Wolf; Kelly M Harrington; Shaunna L Clark; Mark W Miller
Journal:  Educ Psychol Meas       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 2.821

4.  Measurement Invariance Conventions and Reporting: The State of the Art and Future Directions for Psychological Research.

Authors:  Diane L Putnick; Marc H Bornstein
Journal:  Dev Rev       Date:  2016-06-29

5.  Random Responding from Participants is a Threat to the Validity of Social Science Research Results.

Authors:  Jason W Osborne; Margaret R Blanchard
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2011-01-21

6.  Parameter Estimation Accuracy of the Effort-Moderated Item Response Theory Model Under Multiple Assumption Violations.

Authors:  Joseph A Rios; James Soland
Journal:  Educ Psychol Meas       Date:  2020-09-02       Impact factor: 3.088

7.  Comparison of Methods for Factor Invariance Testing of a 1-Factor Model With Small Samples and Skewed Latent Traits.

Authors:  Holmes W Finch; Brian F French; Maria E Hernández Finch
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-03-22

8.  Modeling Test-Taking Non-effort in MIRT Models.

Authors:  Yue Liu; Zhen Li; Hongyun Liu; Fang Luo
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-02-04

9.  A Primer to (Cross-Cultural) Multi-Group Invariance Testing Possibilities in R.

Authors:  Ronald Fischer; Johannes A Karl
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-07-18
  9 in total
  4 in total

1.  Quantifying the Distorting Effect of Rapid Guessing on Estimates of Coefficient Αlpha.

Authors:  Joseph A Rios; Jiayi Deng
Journal:  Appl Psychol Meas       Date:  2021-10-11

2.  Investigating the Effect of Differential Rapid Guessing on Population Invariance in Equating.

Authors:  Jiayi Deng; Joseph A Rios
Journal:  Appl Psychol Meas       Date:  2022-06-16

3.  A Comparison of Robust Likelihood Estimators to Mitigate Bias From Rapid Guessing.

Authors:  Joseph A Rios
Journal:  Appl Psychol Meas       Date:  2022-04-04

4.  The Effect of Psychological Distress on Measurement Invariance in Measures of Mental Wellbeing.

Authors:  Matthew Iasiello; Eimear Muir-Cochrane; Joep van Agteren; Daniel B Fassnacht
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-08-15       Impact factor: 4.614

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.