Testing Measurement Invariance Using MIMIC

Abstract

Multiple-indicators multiple-causes (MIMIC) modeling is often used to test a latent group mean difference while assuming the equivalence of factor loadings and intercepts over groups. However, this study demonstrated that MIMIC was insensitive to the presence of factor loading noninvariance, which implies that factor loading invariance should be tested through other measurement invariance testing techniques. MIMIC modeling is also used for measurement invariance testing by allowing a direct path from a grouping covariate to each observed variable. This simulation study with both continuous and categorical variables investigated the performance of MIMIC in detecting noninvariant variables under various study conditions and showed that the likelihood ratio test of MIMIC with Oort adjustment not only controlled Type I error rates below the nominal level but also maintained high power across study conditions.

Keywords

MIMIC measurement invariance differential item functioning measurement bias

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ainsworth

A. T.

(2008). Dimensionality and invariance: Assessing differential item functioning using bifactor multiple indicator multiple cause models. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(9), 6383B.

Barendse

M. T.

Oort

F. J.

Garst

G. J. A.

(2010). Using restricted factor analysis with latent moderated structures to detect uniform and nonuniform measurement bias: A simulation study. Advances in Statistical Analysis, 94(2), 117-127. doi:10.1007/s10182-010-0126-1612KL10.1007/s10182-010-0126-1612KL

Barendse

M. T.

Oort

F. J.

Werner

C. S.

Ligtvoet

Schermelleh-Engel

(2011). Measurement bias detection through factor analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Brown

T. A.

(2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1993). Alternate ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen

K. A.

Long

J. S.

(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Finch

(2005). The MIMIC model as a method for detecting DIF: Comparison with Mantel-Haenszel, SIBTEST, and the IRT likelihood ratio. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 278-295.

Fleishman

Spector

Altman

(2002). Impact of differential item functioning on age and gender differences in functional disability. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57, S275-S284.

French

B. F.

Finch

W. H.

(2008). Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis: Locating the invariant referent sets. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 96-113.

L.-t.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

10.

Joreskog

K. G.

Goldberger

A. S.

(1975). Estimation of a model with multiple indicators and multiple causes of a single latent variable. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70, 631-639.

11.

Kaplan

(2009). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

12.

Kim

E. S.

Yoon

(2011). Testing measurement invariance: A comparison of multiple-group categorical CFA and IRT. Structural Equation Modeling, 18, 212-228.

13.

Lord

F. M.

Novick

M. E.

(1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

14.

McCarthy

D. M.

Pedersen

S. L.

D’Amico

E. J.

(2009). Analysis of item response and differential item functioning of alcohol expectancies in middle school youths. Psychological Assessment, 21, 444-449.

15.

Meade

A. W.

Lautenschlager

G. J.

(2004). A comparison of item response theory and confirmatory factor analytic methodologies for establishing measurement equivalence/invariance. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 361-388.

16.

Mellenbergh

G. J.

(1989). Item bias and item response theory. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 127-143.

17.

Meredith

(1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525-543.

18.

Millsap

R. E.

Everson

H. T.

(1993). Methodology review: Statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 297-334.

19.

Millsap

R. E.

Yun-Tein

(2004). Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 479-515.

20.

Muthén

B. O.

(1989). Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations. Psychometrika, 54, 557-585.

21.

Muthén

B. O.

Asparouhov

(2002). Latent variable analysis with categorical outcomes: Multiple-group and growth modeling in Mplus. Mplus Web Notes: No. 4. Retrieved from http://www.statmodel.com/download/webnotes/CatMGLong.pdf

22.

Muthén

B. O.

Kao

Burstein

(1991). Instructionally sensitive psychometrics: Application of a new IRT-based detection technique to mathematics achievement test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 1-22.

23.

Muthén

B. O.

Muthén

L. K.

(2008). Mplus (Version 5.2) [Computer software]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

24.

Navas-Ara

M. J.

Gomez-Benito

(2002). Effects of ability scale purification on the identification of DIF. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 9-15. doi:10.1027//1015-5759.18.1.910.1027//1015-5759.18.1.9

25.

Oort

F. J.

(1992). Using restricted factor analysis to detect item bias. Methodika, 6, 150-166.

26.

Oort

F. J.

(1998). Simulation study of item bias detection with restricted factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 5, 107-124.

27.

Raju

N. S.

Laffitte

L. J.

Byrne

B. M.

(2002). Measurement equivalence: A comparison of methods based on confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 517-529.

28.

Rubio

D. M.

Berg-Weger

Tebb

S. S.

Rauch

S. M.

(2003). Validating a measure across groups: The use of MIMIC models in scale development. Journal of Social Service Research, 29(3), 53-67. doi:10.1300/J079v29n03_0310.1300/J079v29n03_03

29.

Stark

Chernyshenko

O. S.

Drasgow

(2006). Detecting differential item functioning with confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Toward a unified strategy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1292-1306.

30.

Takane

de Leeuw

(1987). On the relationship between item response theory and factor analysis of discretized variables. Psychometrika, 52, 393-408.

31.

Thompson

M. S.

Green

S. B.

(2006). Evaluating between-group differences in latent variable means. In Hancock

G. R.

Mueller

R. O.

(Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 119-169). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

32.

Wang

W.-C.

Shih

C.-L.

Yang

C.-C.

(2009). The MIMIC method with scale purification for detecting differential item functioning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 713-731.

33.

Willse

J. T.

Goodman

J. T.

(2008). Comparison of multiple-indicators, multiple-causes– and item response theory–based analyses of subgroup differences. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 587-602. doi:10.1177/001316440731260110.1177/0013164407312601

34.

Wirth

R. J.

Edwards

M. C.

(2007). Item factor analysis: Current approaches and future directions. Psychological Methods, 12, 58-79. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.5810.1037/1082-989X.12.1.58

35.

Woods

C. M.

(2009). Evaluation of MIMIC-model methods for DIF testing with comparison to two-group analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44, 1-27. doi:10.1080/0027317080262012110.1080/00273170802620121

36.

Woods

C. M.

Grimm

K. J.

(2011). Testing for nonuniform differential item functioning with multiple indicator multiple cause models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 35, 339-361. 10.1177/014662161140598410.1177/0146621611405984

37.

Woods

C. M.

Oltmanns

T. F.

Turkheimer

(2009). Illustration of MIMIC-model DIF testing with the schedule for nonadaptive and adaptive personality. Journal of Psychopathology & Behavioral Assessment, 31, 320-330. doi:10.1007/s10862-008-9118-910.1007/s10862-008-9118-9

38.

Yoon

(2008). Statistical power in testing factorial invariance with ordinal measures. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(11), 7705B.

39.

Yoon

Millsap

R. E.

(2007). Detecting violations of factorial invariance using data-based specification searches: A Monte Carlo study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 435-463.

40.

(2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.

41.

Yuan

K. H.

Bentler

P. M.

(2004). On chi-square difference and z tests in mean and covariance structure analysis when the base model is misspecified. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 737-757. doi:10.1177/001316440426485310.1177/0013164404264853