todd d. little university of kansas director, quantitative training program
DESCRIPTION
Factorial Invariance: Why It's Important and How to Test for It. Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program Director, Center for Research Methods and Data Analysis Director, Undergraduate Social and Behavioral Sciences Methodology Minor - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1crmda.KU.edu
Todd D. LittleUniversity of Kansas
Director, Quantitative Training ProgramDirector, Center for Research Methods and Data Analysis
Director, Undergraduate Social and Behavioral Sciences Methodology MinorMember, Developmental Psychology Training Program
crmda.KU.eduColloquium presented 5-24-2012 @
University of Turku, Finland
Special Thanks to: Mijke Rhemtulla & Wei Wu
Factorial Invariance: Why It's Important and How to Test for It
![Page 2: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Comparing Across Groups or Across Time• In order to compare constructs across two
or more groups OR across two or more time points, the equivalence of measurement must be established.
• This need is at the heart of the concept of Factorial Invariance.
• Factorial Invariance is assumed in any cross-group or cross-time comparison
• SEM is an ideal procedure to test this assumption.
![Page 3: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Comparing Across Groups or Across Time
•Meredith provides the definitive rationale for the conditions under which invariance will hold (OR not)…Selection Theorem
• Note, Pearson originated selection theorem at the turn of the century
![Page 4: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Which posits: if the selection process effects
only the true score variances of a set of
indicators, invariance will hold
![Page 5: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Classical Measurement Theorem
Xi = Ti + Si + ei
Where, Xi is a person’s observed score on an item,Ti is the 'true' score (i.e., what we hope to measure),Si is the item-specific, yet reliable, component, andei is random error, or noise.
Note that Si and ei are assumed to be normally distributed (with mean of zero) and uncorrelated with each other. And, across all items in a domain, the Sis are uncorrelated with each other, as are the eis.
![Page 6: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Selection Theorem on Measurement Theorem
X1 = T1 + S1 + e1
X2 = T2 + S2 + e2
X3 = T3 + S3 + e3
Selection Process
![Page 7: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Levels Of Invariance• There are four levels of invariance:
1) Configural invariance - the pattern of fixed & free parameters is the same.2) Weak factorial invariance - the relative factor loadings are proportionally equal across groups.3) Strong factorial invariance - the relative indicator means are proportionally equal across groups.4) Strict factorial invariance - the indicator residuals are exactly equal across groups
(this level is not recommended).
![Page 8: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
The Covariance Structures Model
where...
Σ = matrix of model-implied indicator variances and covariances
Λ = matrix of factor loadings
Ψ = matrix of latent variables / common factor variances and covariances
Θ = matrix of unique factor variances (i.e., S + e and all covariances are usually 0)
![Page 9: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
The Mean Structures Model
where...
μ = vector of model-implied indicator means
τ = vector of indicator intercepts
Λ = matrix of factor loadings
α = vector of factor means
![Page 10: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Factorial Invariance• An ideal method for investigating the degree of
invariance characterizing an instrument is multiple-group (or multiple-occasion) confirmatory factor analysis; or mean and covariance structures (MACS) models
• MACS models involve specifying the same factor model in multiple groups (occasions) simultaneously and sequentially imposing a series of cross-group (or occasion) constraints.
![Page 11: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Some Equations
Configural invariance: Same factor loading pattern across groups, no constraints.
Weak (metric) invariance: Factor loadings proportionally equal across groups.
Strong (scalar) invariance: Loadings & intercepts proportionally equal across groups.
Strict invariance: Add unique variances to be exactly equal across groups.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )g g g g g ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )g g g g
( ) ( ) ( )g g g ( ) ( ) ( )g g g
( ) ( ) ( )g g g ( ) ( )g g
( ) ( )g g ( ) ( )g g
![Page 12: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Models and Invariance• It is useful to remember that all models
are, strictly speaking, incorrect. Invariance models are no exception.
"...invariance is a convenient fiction created to help insecure humans make sense out of a universe in which there may be no sense."
(Horn, McArdle, & Mason, 1983, p. 186).
![Page 13: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Measured vs. Latent Variables• Measured (Manifest) Variables• Observable• Directly Measurable• A proxy for intended construct
• Latent Variables• The construct of interest• Invisible• Must be inferred from measured variables• Usually ‘Causes’ the measured variables (cf.
reflective indicators vs. formative indicators)• What you wish you could measure directly
![Page 14: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Manifest vs. Latent Variables
• “Indicators are our worldly window into the latent space”
• John R. Nesselroade
![Page 15: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Manifest vs. Latent Variables
X1
ξ1
Ψ11
X3X2
θ22θ11 θ33
λ11 λ21 λ31
![Page 16: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Selection Theorem
X1
Group(Time) 1
Ψ11
X3X2
θ22θ11 θ33
λ11 λ21 λ31
X1
Group (Time) 2
Ψ11
X3X2
θ22θ11 θ33
λ11 λ21 λ31
Selection Influence
![Page 17: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Estimating Latent Variables
17
X1
ξ1
Ψ11
X3X2
θ22θ11 θ33
λ11 λ21 λ31
Implied variance/covariance matrixX1 X2 X3
X1 11y1111 + θ11
X2 11y1121 21y1121 + θ22
X3 11y1131 21y1131 31y1131 + θ33
To solve for the parameters of a latent construct, it is necessary to set a scale (and make sure the parameters are identified)
![Page 18: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Scale Setting and Identification
18
Three methods of scale-setting (part of identification process)
Arbitrary metric methods:•Fix the latent variance at 1.0; latent mean at 0• (reference-group method)•Fix a loading at 1.0; an indicator’s intercept at 0• (marker-variable method)
Non-Arbitrary metric method•Constrain the average of loadings to be 1 and the
average of intercepts at 0 • (effects-coding method; Little, Slegers, & Card, 2006)
![Page 19: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
1. Fix the Latent Variance to 1.0and Latent mean to 0.0)
19
X1
ξ1
1.0*
X3X2
θ22θ11 θ33
λ11 λ21 λ31
Implied variance/covariance matrixX1 X2 X3
X1 1112 + q11
X2 11 1 21 1212 + q22
X3 11 1 31 21 1 31 1312 + q33
Three methods of setting scale 1) Fix latent variance (Ψ11)
![Page 20: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
2. Fix a Marker Variable to 1.0(and its intercept to 0.0)
20
X1
ξ1
Ψ11
X3X2
θ22θ11 θ33
1.0* λ21 λ31
Implied variance/covariance matrixX1 X2 X3
X1y11 q11
X21y1121 21y1121
q22
X31y1131 21y1131 31y1131
q33
![Page 21: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
3. Constrain Loadings to Average 1.0(and the intercepts to average 0.0)
21
X1
ξ1
Ψ11
X3X2
θ22 θ33
λ11= 3-λ21-λ31 λ21 λ31
Implied variance/covariance matrixX1 X2 X3
X1(3-21- 31)y11(3-21- 31) + q11
X2(3-21- 31)y1121 21y1121 + q22
X3(3-21- 31) y1131 21y1131 31y1131 + q33
θ11
![Page 22: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Configural invariance
1 2xx
1 65432
1* 1*
.64 .66 .71 .59 .55 .57
.09 .11 .07 .11 .07 .06
Group 1:
Group 2:
1 2xx
1 65432
1* 1*
.57 .61 .63 .63 .59 .60
.12 .10 .10 .11 .10 .07
![Page 23: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Configural invariance
1 2xx
1 65432
1* 1*
.64 .76 .71 .59 .55 .57
.09 .11 .07 .11 .07 .06
Group 1:
Group 2:
1 2xx
1 65432
1* 1*
.57 .51 .63 .63 .59 .60
.12 .10 .10 .11 .10 .07
![Page 24: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Configural invariance
1 2-.32
1 65432
1* 1*
.64 .66 .71 .56 .55 .57
.09 .11 .07 .11 .07 .06
Group 1:
Group 2:
1 2-.07
1 65432
1* 1*
.57 .61 .63 .63 .59 .60
.12 .10 .10 .11 .10 .07
![Page 25: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Weak factorial invariance (equate λs across groups)
1 2PS(2,1)
1 65432
1* 1*PS(1,1) PS(2,2)
LY(1,1) LY(2,1) LY(3,1) LY(4,2) LY(5,2) LY(6,2)
TE(1,1) TE(2,2) TE(3,3) TE(4,4) TE(5,5) TE(6,6)
1 2PS(2,1)
1 65432
e ePS(1,1) PS(2,2)
=LY(1,1) =LY(2,1) =LY(3,1) =LY(4,2) =LY(5,2) =LY(6,2)
TE(1,1) TE(2,2) TE(3,3) TE(4,4) TE(5,5) TE(6,6)
Group 1:
Group 2:
Note: Variances are now Freed in group 2
![Page 26: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
F: Test of Weak Factorial Invariance
Positive Negative
.58 .59 .64 .62 .59 .61
-.07
.11 .10 .11 .10 .07
Model Fit: χ2(20, n=759)=49.0; RMSEA=.062(.040-.084); CFI=.99;
NNFI=.99
1* 1*
Great+ Glad
Unhappy+ Bad
Down + Blue
Terrible + Sad
Happy+ Super
Cheerful+ Good
.10 .07 .11 .07 .06
1.22
.85
-.33
.12
.09
(9.2.1.TwoGroup.Loadings.FactorID)
![Page 27: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
M: Test of Weak Factorial Invariance
Positive Negative
1* 1.02 1.11 1* .95 .97
-.03
.11 .10 .11 .10 .07
Model Fit: χ2(20, n=759)=49.0; RMSEA=.062(.040-.084); CFI=.99; NNFI=.99
.33 .39
Great+ Glad
Unhappy+ Bad
Down + Blue
Terrible + Sad
Happy+ Super
Cheerful+ Good
.10 .07 .11 .07 .06
.41 .33-.12
.12
.09
(9.2.1.TwoGroup.Loadings.MarkerID)
![Page 28: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
EF: Test of Weak Factorial Invariance
Positive Negative
.96 .98 1.06 1.03 .97 1.00
-.03
.11 .10 .11 .10 .07
Model Fit: χ2(20, n=759)=49.0; RMSEA=.062(.040-.084); CFI=.99; NNFI=.99
.36 .37
Great+ Glad
Unhappy+ Bad
Down + Blue
Terrible + Sad
Happy+ Super
Cheerful+ Good
.10 .07 .11 .07 .06
.44 .31-.12
.12
.09
(9.2.1.TwoGroup.Loadings.EffectsID)
![Page 29: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
• The results of the two-group model with equality constraints on the corresponding loadings provides a test of proportional equivalence of the loadings:
Results Test of Weak Factorial Invariance
Nested significance test:(χ2
(20, n=759) = 49.0) - (χ2(16, n=759) = 46.0) = Δχ2
(4, n=759) = 3.0, p > .50
The difference in χ2 is non-significant and therefore the constraints are supported. The loadings are invariant across the two age groups.
“Reasonableness” tests:
RMSEA: weak invariance = .062(.040-.084) versus configural = .069(.046-.093)
The two RMSEAs fall within one another’s confidence intervals.CFI: weak invariance = .99 versus configural = .99 The CFIs are virtually identical (one rule of thumb is ΔCFI <= .01 is acceptable).
(9.2.TwoGroup. Loadings)
![Page 30: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
• When we regress indicators on to constructs we can also estimate the intercept of the indicator.
• This information can be used to estimate the Latent mean of a construct
• Equivalence of the loading intercepts across groups is, in fact, a critical criterion to pass in order to say that one has strong factorial invariance.
Adding information about means
![Page 31: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Adding information about means
1 2
1 65432
1* 1*AL(1)
TY(1) TY(2) TY(3) TY(4) TY(6)TY(5)
AL(2)
X
![Page 32: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Adding information about means(9.3.0.TwoGroups.FreeMeans)
1 2
1 65432
3.143.07
2.992.85
3.072.98
1.701.72
1.531.58
1.551.55
0*0*
0*0*
Model Fit: χ2(20, n=759) = 49.0 (note that model fit does not change)
X
![Page 33: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Strong factorial invariance (aka. loading invariance) – Factor Identification Method
(9.3.1.TwoGroups.Intercepts.FactorID)
1 2
1 65432
X
3.15 2.97 3.08 1.70 1.55 1.54
0*-.16
0*.04
Model Fit: χ2(24, n=759) = 58.4, RMSEA = .061(.041;.081), NNFI = .986, CFI = .989
.58 .59 .64 .62 .59 .61
-.07-.33
1*1.22
1*0.85
![Page 34: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
(9.3.1.TwoGroups.Intercepts.MarkerID)
1 2
1 65432
X
0* -.28 -.43 0* -.06 -.12
3.153.06
1.701.72
Model Fit: χ2(24, n=759) = 58.4, RMSEA = .061(.041;.081), NNFI = .986, CFI = .989
1* 1.03 1.11 1* .95 .97
-.03-.12
.33
.40.39.33
Strong factorial invariance (aka. loading invariance) – Marker Var. Identification Method
![Page 35: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
(9.3.1.TwoGroups.Intercepts.EffectsID)
1 2
1 65432
X
.23 -.05 -.18 .06 -.00 -.06
3.072.97
1.591.62
Model Fit: χ2(24, n=759) = 58.4, RMSEA = .061(.041;.081), NNFI = .986, CFI = .989
.95 .98 1.06 1.03 .97 1.00
-.03-.12
.36
.44.37.31
Strong factorial invariance (aka. loading invariance) – Effects Identification Method
![Page 36: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Indicator mean = intercept + loading(Latent Mean)i.e., Mean of Y = intercept + slope (X)
For Positive Affect then:Group 1 (7th grade): Group 2 (8th grade):
Y = τ + λ (α) Y = τ + λ (α)3.14 ≈ 3.15 + .58(0) 3.07 ≈ 3.15 + .58(-.16) = 3.062.99 ≈ 2.97 + .59(0) 2.85 ≈ 2.97 + .59(-.16) = 2.883.07 ≈ 3.08 + .64(0) 2.97 ≈ 3.08 + .64(-.16) = 2.98
Note: in the raw metric the observed difference would be -.103.14 vs. 3.07 = -.072.99 vs. 2.85 = -.14 gives an average of -.10 observed3.07 vs. 2.97 = -.10
============== i.e. averaging: 3.07 - 2.96 = -.10
How Are the Means Reproduced?
_ _
![Page 37: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
The complete model with means, std’s, and r’s
Positive3
Negative4
-.07
1* 1*-.32
Positive1
Negative2
0* 0*
1.0*(in group 1)
1.0*(in group 1)
1.11(in group 2)
.92(in group 2)
X
-.16 (z=2.02)
.04 (z=0.53)
3.15 2.97 3.08 1.70 1.541.54
.62 .59 .61.64.58 .59
Estimated only in group 2! Group 1 = 0
(9.7.1.Phantom variables.With Means.FactorID)
Model Fit: χ2(24, n=759) = 58.4, RMSEA = .061(.041;.081), NNFI = .986, CFI=.989
![Page 38: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
The complete model with means, std’s, and r’s
Positive3
Negative4
-.07
1* 1*-.32
Positive1
Negative2
0* 0*
.58(in group 1)
.62(in group 1)
.64(in group 2)
.57(in group 2)
X
3.15 3.06
1.701.72
0* -.28 -.43 0* -.12-.06
1* .95 .971.111* 1.03
(9.7.2.Phantom variables.With Means.MarkerID)
Model Fit: χ2(24, n=759) = 58.4, RMSEA = .061(.041;.081), NNFI = .986, CFI=.989
![Page 39: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
The complete model with means, std’s, and r’s
Positive3
Negative4
-.07
1* 1*-.32
Positive1
Negative2
0* 0*
.60(in group 1)
.61(in group 1)
.67(in group 2)
.56(in group 2)
X
3.07 2.97
1.591.62
.23 -.05 -.18 .06 -.06-.00
1.03 .97 1.001.06.96 .98
(9.7.3.Phantom variables.With Means.EffectsID)
Model Fit: χ2(24, n=759) = 58.4, RMSEA = .061(.041;.081), NNFI = .986, CFI=.989
![Page 40: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Cohen’s d = (M2 – M1) / SDpooled
where SDpooled = √[(n1Var1 + n2Var2)/(n1+n2)]
Effect size of latent mean differences
![Page 41: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Cohen’s d = (M2 – M1) / SDpooled
where SDpooled = √[(n1Var1 + n2Var2)/(n1+n2)]
Latent d = (α2j – α1j) / √ψpooled
where √ψpooled = √[(n1 ψ1jj + n2 ψ2jj)/(n1+n2)]
Effect size of latent mean differences
![Page 42: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Cohen’s d = (M2 – M1) / SDpooled
where SDpooled = √[(n1Var1 + n2Var2)/(n1+n2)]
Latent d = (α2j – α1j) / √ψpooled
where √ψpooled = √[(n1 ψ1jj + n2 ψ2jj)/(n1+n2)]
dpositive = (-.16 – 0) / 1.05where √ψpooled = √[(380*1 + 379*1.22)/(380+379)]
= -.152
Effect size of latent mean differences
![Page 43: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
5. Invariance of Variances
χ2 difference test
6. Invariance of Correlations/Covariances
χ2 difference test
3b or 7. Invariance of Latent Means
χ2 difference test
3. Invariance of InterceptsRMSEA/CFI difference Test
Comparing parameters across groups1. Configural Invariance
Inter-occular/model fit Test
4. Invariance of Variance/
Covariance Matrix
χ2 difference test
2. Invariance of LoadingsRMSEA/CFI difference Test
![Page 44: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
The ‘Null’ Model
44
• The standard ‘null’ model assumes that all covariances are zero – only variances are estimated
• In longitudinal research, a more appropriate ‘null’ model is to assume that the variances of each corresponding indicator are equal at each time point and their means (intercepts) are also equal at each time point (see Widaman & Thompson).
• In multiple-group settings, a more appropriate ‘null’ model is to assume that the variances of each corresponding indicator are equal across groups and their means are also equal across groups.
![Page 45: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
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, 456-466.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups: A reconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal of Management, 25, 1-27.
Gonzalez, R., & Griffin, D. (2001). Testing parameters in structural equation modeling: Every “one” matters. Psychological Methods, 6, 258-269.
Kaiser, H. F., & Dickman, K. (1962). Sample and population score matrices and sample correlation matrices from an arbitrary population correlation matrix. Psychometrika, 27, 179-182.
Kaplan, D. (1989). Power of the likelihood ratio test in multiple group confirmatory factor analysis under partial measurement invariance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 579-586.
Little, T. D., Slegers, D. W., & Card, N. A. (2006). A non-arbitrary method of identifying and scaling latent variables in SEM and MACS models. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 59-72.
MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modification in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 490-504.
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525-543.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78-90.
References
45
![Page 46: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
46crmda.KU.edu
Todd D. LittleUniversity of Kansas
Director, Quantitative Training ProgramDirector, Center for Research Methods and Data Analysis
Director, Undergraduate Social and Behavioral Sciences Methodology MinorMember, Developmental Psychology Training Program
crmda.KU.eduColloquium presented 5-24-2012 @
University of Turku, Finland
Special Thanks to: Mijke Rhemtulla & Wei Wu
Factorial Invariance: Why It's Important and How to Test for It
![Page 47: Todd D. Little University of Kansas Director, Quantitative Training Program](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070421/5681619d550346895dd15277/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
47www.Quant.KU.edu
Update
Dr. Todd Little is currently at Texas Tech University
Director, Institute for Measurement, Methodology, Analysis and Policy (IMMAP)Director, “Stats Camp”
Professor, Educational Psychology and LeadershipEmail: [email protected]
IMMAP (immap.educ.ttu.edu)Stats Camp (Statscamp.org)