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

JAN Cieciuch; ELDAD DAVIDOV

doi:10.21697/sp.2015.14.2.06

Published: 2015-09-20

Vol. 15 No. 2 (2015)

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

JAN Cieciuch , ELDAD DAVIDOV

Studia Psychologica: Theoria et praxis

Section: Commentaries

https://doi.org/10.21697/sp.2015.14.2.06

Abstract

Establishing measurement invariance for indicators measured using online and offline modes of data collection is a precondition for the comparison of such data. Furthermore, it may allow accumulating knowledge using data from different sources or pooling data collected using different methods. The main goal of the current paper is to present a tutorial outlining the procedure of testing for measurement invariance using the Amos and Mplus software packages. We focus on the following steps for performing a measurement invariance test: 1) model specification, 2) model identification, 3) modelestimation and evaluation, and 4) model modification.

Keywords:

measurement invariance, Amos, Mplus

Download files

PDF

Citation rules

Cieciuch, J., & DAVIDOV, E. (2015). ESTABLISHING MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE ACROSS ONLINE AND OFFLINE SAMPLES. A TUTORIAL WITH THE SOFTWARE PACKAGES AMOS AND MPLUS. Studia Psychologica: Theoria Et Praxis, 15(2), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.21697/sp.2015.14.2.06

Cited by / Share

References

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

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

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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

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

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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
Google Scholar

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

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar