A measurement model is invoked whenever a psychological interpretation is placed on test scores. When stated in detail, a measurement model provides a description of the numerical and theoretical relationship between observed scores and the corresponding latent variables or constructs. In this way, the hypothesis that similar meaning can be derived from a set of test scores can be tested by examination of a measurement model across groups. This study examines the invariance of a measurement model underlying Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Third Edition scores in the U.S. and the Canadian standardization samples. The measurement model, involving four latent variables, satisfies the assumption of invariance across samples. Subtest scores also show similar reliability in both samples. However, slightly higher latent variable means are found in the Canadian normative sample.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
Bowden, S.C., Cook, M.J., Bardenhagen, F.J., Shores, E.A., & Carstairs, J.R. (2004). Measurement invariance of core cognitive abilities in heterogeneous neurological and community samples . Intelligence, 33, 363-389.
3.
Bowden, S.C., Weiss, L.G., Holdnack, J.A., & Lloyd, D. (2006). Age-related invariance of abilities measured with the Wechsler Adults Intelligence Scale-III. Psychological Assessment, 18, 334-339.
4.
Byrne, B.M. (1998). Structural equation modelling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
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.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York : Academic Press.
8.
Dudgeon, P.L. (2004). A note on extending Steiger's ( 1998) multiple sample RMSEA adjustment to other noncentrality parameter-based statistics. Structural Equation Modelling , 11, 305-319.
9.
Hancock, G.R. (2001). Effect size, power, and sample size determination for structured means modeling and MIMIC approaches to between-groups hypothesis testing of means on a single latent construct. Psychometrica , 66, 373-388.
10.
Horn, J.L., & McArdle, J.J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research , 18, 117-144.
11.
Iverson, G.L., Lange, R.T., & Viljoen, H. (2006). Comparing the Canadian and American WAIS-III normative systems in inpatient neuropsychiatry and forensic psychiatry. Revue canadienne des Sciences du comportement, 38, 348-353.
12.
Keith, T.Z. (1997). Using confirmatory factor analysis to aid in understanding the constructs measured by intelligence tests. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests and issues (pp. 373-402). New York: Guilford.
13.
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525-543.
The Psychological Corporation. (2001). WAIS-III Canadian technical manual. San Antonio, TX: Author.
16.
The Psychological Corporation. (2002). WAIS-III WMS-III technical manual (updated edition). San Antonio, TX: Author.
17.
Reise, S.P., Widaman, K.F., & Pugh, R.H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 552-566.
18.
Saklofske, D.H., Hildebrand, D.K., & Gorsuch, R.L. (2000). Replication of the factor structure of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition with aCanadian sample.Psychological Assessment, 12, 436-439.
19.
Schmidt, F.L., & Hunter, J.E. (1996). Measurement error in psychological research: Lessons from 26 research scenarios. Psychological Methods, 1, 199-223.
20.
Taub, G.E., McGrew, K.S., & Witta, E.L. (2004). A confirmatory analysis of the factor structure and cross-age invariance of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition. Psychological Assessment, 16, 85-89.
21.
Tulsky, D.S., & Ledbetter, M.F. (2000). Updating to the WAIS-III and WMS-III: Considerations for research and clinical practice. Psychological Assessment, 12, 253-262.
22.
Tulsky, D.S., & Price, L.R. (2003). The joint WAIS-III and WMS-III factor structure: Development and cross-validation of a six-factor model of cognitive functioning . Psychological Assessment, 15, 149-162.
23.
Vandenberg, R.J., & Lance, C.E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurements invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4-69.
24.
Widaman, K.F., & Reise, S.P. (1997). Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: Applications in the substance abuse domain. In K. J. Bryant & M. Windle (Eds.), The science of prevention: Methodological advance from alcohol and substance abuse research (pp. 281-324). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association .
25.
Wilkinson, L., & the Task Force on Statistical Inference: APA Board of Scientific Affairs. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist , 54, 594-604.
