ESTABLISHING MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE ACROSS ONLINE AND OFFLINE SAMPLES. A TUTORIAL WITH THE SOFTWARE PACKAGES AMOS AND MPLUS

JAN Cieciuch, ELDAD DAVIDOV

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21697/sp.2015.14.2.06

Abstrakt


Równoważność pomiaru konstruktów mierzonych online i offline jest warunkiem porównywalności zebranych danych. Umożliwia akumulację wiedzy uzyskanej na podstawie badań przeprowadzonych tymi dwiema różnymi metodami oraz łączenie danych zebranych tymi sposobami do dalszych analiz. Głównym celem artykułu jest prezentacja procedury testowania równoważności pomiaru w programach Amos i Mplus. Procedurę prezentujemy w kolejnych krokach testu równoważności: 1) specyfikacja modelu, 2) identyfikacja modelu, 3) estymacja i ocena modelu i 4) modyfikacja modelu.


Słowa kluczowe


równoważność pomiaru; Amos; Mplus

Pełny tekst:

PDF (English)

Bibliografia


Arbuckle, J. L. (2012). Amos 21 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: IBM SPSS.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

Bentler, P. M. & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance-structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.88.3.588

Byrne, B. M. (2004). Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS Graphics: A road less traveled. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(2), 272–300. doi: 10.1207/ s15328007sem1102_8

Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with Amos. Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

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(3), 456–466. doi: 10.1037/00332909.105.3.456

Byrne, B. M. & Stewart, S. M. (2006). The MACS approach to testing for multigroup invariance of a second-order structure: A walk through the process. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(2), 287–321. doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem1302_7

Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. doi: 10.1177/0734282911406661

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(5), 1005–1018. doi: 10.1037/a0013193

Cheung, G. W. & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., & Billiet, J. (2011). Cross-cultural analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Routledge.

Horn, J. L. & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18(3–4), 117–144. doi: 10.1080/03610739208253916

Flora, D. B. & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 466–491. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.466

Hu, L. T. & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. doi: 10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.424

Hu, L. T. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 66(1), 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118

Hu, L. T., Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1992). Can test statistics in covariance structure-analysis be trusted. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 351–362. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.351

Jöreskog, K. G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 34(2), 183–202. doi: 10.1007/bf02289343

Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36(4), 409–426. doi: 10.1007/bf02291366

Kaplan, D. (1990). Evaluating and modifying covariance structure models – A review and recommendation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 137–155. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_1

Little, T. D., Slegers, D. W., & Card, N. A. (2006). A non-arbitrary method of identifying and scaling latent variable in SEM and MACS models. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(1), 59–72. doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem1301_3

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cut-off values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341. doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2

Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J. S., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 471-491. doi: 10.1037/a0019227

Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor-analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58(4), 525–543. doi: 10.1007/bf02294825

Millsap, R. E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. New York, London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide. Seventh edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., & Sörbom, D. (1987). The detection and correction of specification errors in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 17, 105–129.

Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., & van der Veld, W. M. (2009). Testing structural equation models or detection of misspecifications? Structural Equation Modeling, 16(4), 561–582. doi: 10.1080/10705510903203433

Sörbom, D. (1989). Model modification. Psychometrika, 54(3), 371–384. doi: 10.1007/bf02294623

Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–90. doi: 10.1086/209528

Van de Vijver, F. J. R. & Poortinga, Y. H. (1997). Towards an integrated analysis of bias in cross-cultural assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 13(1), 29–37. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.13.1.29

Vandenberg, R. J. (2002). Toward a further understanding of and improvement in measurement invariance methods and procedures. Organizational Research Methods, 5(2), 139–158. doi: 10.1177/1094428102005002001

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(1), 4–70. doi: 10.1177/109442810031002

Zewnętrzne odnośniki

  • Obecnie brak jakichkolwiek odnośników.