Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Psychology--Statistical methods.
- All Subjects: Quantitative psychology
- Creators: Green, Samuel
Description
Investigation of measurement invariance (MI) commonly assumes correct specification of dimensionality across multiple groups. Although research shows that violation of the dimensionality assumption can cause bias in model parameter estimation for single-group analyses, little research on this issue has been conducted for multiple-group analyses. This study explored the effects of mismatch in dimensionality between data and analysis models with multiple-group analyses at the population and sample levels. Datasets were generated using a bifactor model with different factor structures and were analyzed with bifactor and single-factor models to assess misspecification effects on assessments of MI and latent mean differences. As baseline models, the bifactor models fit data well and had minimal bias in latent mean estimation. However, the low convergence rates of fitting bifactor models to data with complex structures and small sample sizes caused concern. On the other hand, effects of fitting the misspecified single-factor models on the assessments of MI and latent means differed by the bifactor structures underlying data. For data following one general factor and one group factor affecting a small set of indicators, the effects of ignoring the group factor in analysis models on the tests of MI and latent mean differences were mild. In contrast, for data following one general factor and several group factors, oversimplifications of analysis models can lead to inaccurate conclusions regarding MI assessment and latent mean estimation.
ContributorsXu, Yuning (Author) / Green, Samuel (Thesis advisor) / Levy, Roy (Committee member) / Thompson, Marilyn (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
A simulation study was conducted to explore the influence of partial loading invariance and partial intercept invariance on the latent mean comparison of the second-order factor within a higher-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model. Noninvariant loadings or intercepts were generated to be at one of the two levels or both levels for a second-order CFA model. The numbers and directions of differences in noninvariant loadings or intercepts were also manipulated, along with total sample size and effect size of the second-order factor mean difference. Data were analyzed using correct and incorrect specifications of noninvariant loadings and intercepts. Results summarized across the 5,000 replications in each condition included Type I error rates and powers for the chi-square difference test and the Wald test of the second-order factor mean difference, estimation bias and efficiency for this latent mean difference, and means of the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).
When the model was correctly specified, no obvious estimation bias was observed; when the model was misspecified by constraining noninvariant loadings or intercepts to be equal, the latent mean difference was overestimated if the direction of the difference in loadings or intercepts of was consistent with the direction of the latent mean difference, and vice versa. Increasing the number of noninvariant loadings or intercepts resulted in larger estimation bias if these noninvariant loadings or intercepts were constrained to be equal. Power to detect the latent mean difference was influenced by estimation bias and the estimated variance of the difference in the second-order factor mean, in addition to sample size and effect size. Constraining more parameters to be equal between groups—even when unequal in the population—led to a decrease in the variance of the estimated latent mean difference, which increased power somewhat. Finally, RMSEA was very sensitive for detecting misspecification due to improper equality constraints in all conditions in the current scenario, including the nonzero latent mean difference, but SRMR did not increase as expected when noninvariant parameters were constrained.
When the model was correctly specified, no obvious estimation bias was observed; when the model was misspecified by constraining noninvariant loadings or intercepts to be equal, the latent mean difference was overestimated if the direction of the difference in loadings or intercepts of was consistent with the direction of the latent mean difference, and vice versa. Increasing the number of noninvariant loadings or intercepts resulted in larger estimation bias if these noninvariant loadings or intercepts were constrained to be equal. Power to detect the latent mean difference was influenced by estimation bias and the estimated variance of the difference in the second-order factor mean, in addition to sample size and effect size. Constraining more parameters to be equal between groups—even when unequal in the population—led to a decrease in the variance of the estimated latent mean difference, which increased power somewhat. Finally, RMSEA was very sensitive for detecting misspecification due to improper equality constraints in all conditions in the current scenario, including the nonzero latent mean difference, but SRMR did not increase as expected when noninvariant parameters were constrained.
ContributorsLiu, Yixing (Author) / Thompson, Marilyn (Thesis advisor) / Green, Samuel (Committee member) / Levy, Roy (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016
Description
Researchers who conduct longitudinal studies are inherently interested in studying individual and population changes over time (e.g., mathematics achievement, subjective well-being). To answer such research questions, models of change (e.g., growth models) make the assumption of longitudinal measurement invariance. In many applied situations, key constructs are measured by a collection of ordered-categorical indicators (e.g., Likert scale items). To evaluate longitudinal measurement invariance with ordered-categorical indicators, a set of hierarchical models can be sequentially tested and compared. If the statistical tests of measurement invariance fail to be supported for one of the models, it is useful to have a method with which to gauge the practical significance of the differences in measurement model parameters over time. Drawing on studies of latent growth models and second-order latent growth models with continuous indicators (e.g., Kim & Willson, 2014a; 2014b; Leite, 2007; Wirth, 2008), this study examined the performance of a potential sensitivity analysis to gauge the practical significance of violations of longitudinal measurement invariance for ordered-categorical indicators using second-order latent growth models. The change in the estimate of the second-order growth parameters following the addition of an incorrect level of measurement invariance constraints at the first-order level was used as an effect size for measurement non-invariance. This study investigated how sensitive the proposed sensitivity analysis was to different locations of non-invariance (i.e., non-invariance in the factor loadings, the thresholds, and the unique factor variances) given a sufficient sample size. This study also examined whether the sensitivity of the proposed sensitivity analysis depended on a number of other factors including the magnitude of non-invariance, the number of non-invariant indicators, the number of non-invariant occasions, and the number of response categories in the indicators.
ContributorsLiu, Yu, Ph.D (Author) / West, Stephen G. (Thesis advisor) / Tein, Jenn-Yun (Thesis advisor) / Green, Samuel (Committee member) / Grimm, Kevin J. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016