Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Oct 24:8:1823.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01823. eCollection 2017.

Advances in Measurement Invariance and Mean Comparison of Latent Variables: Equivalence Testing and A Projection-Based Approach

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Advances in Measurement Invariance and Mean Comparison of Latent Variables: Equivalence Testing and A Projection-Based Approach

Ge Jiang et al. Front Psychol. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Measurement invariance (MI) entails that measurements in different groups are comparable, and is a logical prerequisite when studying difference or change across groups. MI is commonly evaluated using multi-group structural equation modeling through a sequence of chi-square and chi-square-difference tests. However, under the conventional null hypothesis testing (NHT) one can never be confident enough to claim MI even when all test statistics are not significant. Equivalence testing (ET) has been recently proposed to replace NHT for studying MI. ET informs researchers a size of possible misspecification and allows them to claim that measurements are practically equivalent across groups if the size of misspecification is smaller than a tolerable value. Another recent advancement in studying MI is a projection-based method under which testing the cross-group equality of means of latent traits does not require the intercepts equal across groups. The purpose of this article is to introduce the key ideas of the two advancements in MI and present a newly developed R package equaltestMI for researchers to easily apply the two methods. A real data example is provided to illustrate the use of the package. It is advocated that researchers should always consider using the two methods whenever MI needs to be examined.

Keywords: equivalence testing; measurement invariance; minimum tolerable size; projection method; scalar invariance.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The path diagram for the model of Lee and Al Otaiba (2015).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bentler P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull. 107, 238–246. 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Byrne B. M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. New York, NY: Routledge.
    1. 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. Psychol. Bull. 105, 456–466. 10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456 - DOI
    1. Deng L., Yuan K.-H. (2016). Comparing latent means without mean structure models: a projection-based approach. Psychometrika 81, 802–829. 10.1007/s11336-015-9491-8 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gorsuch R. L. (1983). Factor Analysis, 2nd Edn Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

LinkOut - more resources