When assessing latent mean differences, researchers frequently do not explore possible heterogeneity within their data sets. Sources of differences may be functions of a nested data structure or heterogeneity in the form of unobserved classes of observations defined by a difference in factor means. In this study, the use of multilevel structural equation models in combination with factor mixture models (FMMs) for assessing latent mean differences is discussed. Interpretation of single- and multilevel model parameter estimates when comparing latent means for observed and unobserved groups is demonstrated using a large-scale data set in which students are clustered within schools. Methodological dilemmas are discussed, and directions for future research with respect to multilevel FMMs are suggested.
Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika , 52, 317-332.
2.
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2007). Multilevel mixture models. In G. R. Hancock & K. M. Samuelsen (Eds.), Advances in latent variable mixture models (pp. 27-52). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
3.
Bauer, D.J., & Curran, P.J. (2003). Distributional assumptions of growth mixture models: Implications for overextraction of latent trajectory classes. Psychological Methods, 8, 338-363.
4.
Byrne, B.M., Shavelson, R.J., & Muthén, B.O. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456-466.
5.
Cheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R.B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups: A reconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal of Management, 25, 1-27.
6.
Cudeck, R., & Henley, S.J. (2003). A realistic perspective on pattern prepresentation in growth data: Comment on Bauer and Curran. Psychological Methods, 8, 378-383.
7.
Dyer, N.G., Hanges, P.J., & Hall, R.J. (2005). Applying multilevel confirmatory factor analysis techniques to the study of leadership. Leadership Quarterly , 16, 149-167.
8.
Gagné, P. (2006). Mean and covariance structure mixture models. In G. R. Hancock & R. Mueller (Eds.), A second course in structural equation modeling (pp. 197-224). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
9.
Hancock, G.R. (1997). Structural equation modeling methods of hypothesis testing of latent variable means. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30, 91-105.
10.
Heck, R., & Thomas, S. (2000). An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Lo, Y., Mendell, N., & Rubin, D.B. (2001). Testing the number of components in a normal mixture . Biometrika, 88, 767-778.
15.
Lubke, G., & Muthén, B.O. (2007). Performance of factor mixture models as a function of model size, covariate effects, and class-specific parameters. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 26-47.
16.
Lubke, G.H., & Muthén, B.O. (2005). Investigating population heterogeneity with factor mixture models. Psychological Methods, 10, 21-39.
17.
McLachlan, G., & Peel, D. (2000). Finite mixture models. New York: John Wiley.
18.
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525-543.
19.
Muthén, B. (1997). Latent variable modeling with longitudinal and multilevel data. In A. Raftery (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1997 (pp. 453-480). Boston: Blackwell.
20.
Muthén, B. (2004). Latent variable analysis: Growth mixture modeling and related techniques for longitudinal data. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 345-368). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Muthén, B.O. (2003). Statistical and substantive checking in growth mixture modeling: Comment on Bauer and Curran (2003). Psychological Methods, 8, 369-377.
25.
Muthén, B.O., Khoo, S., & Gustafson, J. (1997). Multilevel latent variable modeling in multiple populations. Unpublished manuscript.
26.
Muthén, B.O., & Satorra, A. (1995). Complex sample data in structural equation modeling . In P. V. Marsden (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 267-316). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
Reise, R.P., Ventura, J., Nuechterlein, K.H., & Kim, K.H. (2005). An illustration of multilevel factor analysis . Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 126-136.
29.
Schwartz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461-464.
30.
Sclove, L. (1987). Application of model-selection criteria to some problems in multivariate analyses. Psychometrika, 2, 333-343.
31.
Sörbom, D. (1974). A general method for studying differences in factor means and factor structure between groups. British Journal of Mathematical Statistics in Psychology, 27, 229-239.
32.
Stapleton, L.M. (2005, April). Strategies for assessing latent mean differences with multilevel data. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Montreal , Canada.
33.
Stapleton, L.M. (2006a). An assessment of practical solutions for structural equation modeling with complex sample data. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 28-58.
34.
Stapleton, L.M. (2006b). Using multilevel structural equation modeling techniques with complex sample data. In G. R. Hancock & R. Mueller (Eds.), A second course in structural equation modeling (pp. 343-382). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
35.
Toland, M.D., & De Ayala, R.J. (2005). A multilevel factor analysis of students' evaluations of teaching. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 272-296.
36.
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, kindergarten class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K): Combined/user's manual for the ECLS-K fifth grade data files and electronic codebooks (NCES 2006-032). Washington, DC: Institute for Education Sciences.
37.
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, 4-69.
