Although differences in goodness-of-fit indices (ΔGOFs) have been advocated for assessing measurement invariance, studies that advanced recommended differential cutoffs for adjudicating invariance actually utilized a very limited range of values representing the quality of indicator variables (i.e., magnitude of loadings). Because quality of measurement has been found to be relevant in the context of assessing data-model fit in single-group models, this study used simulation and population analysis methods to examine the extent to which quality of measurement affects ΔGOFs for tests of invariance in multiple group models. Results show that ΔMcDonald’s NCI is minimally affected by loading magnitude and sample size when testing invariance in the measurement model, while differences in comparative fit index varies widely when testing both measurement and structural variance as measurement quality changes, making it difficult to pinpoint a common value that suggests reasonable invariance.
BarrettP. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 815-824.
2.
BrownT. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford.
3.
ByrneB. M. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema, 20, 872-882.
4.
ByrneB. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Hillsdale, NJ: Routledge.
5.
ByrneB. M.ShavelsonR. J.MuthénB. (1989). Testing for equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456-466.
6.
Campbell-SillsL.LiverantG. I.BrownT. A. (2004). Psychometric evaluation of the behavioral inhibition/behavioral activation scales in a large sample of outpatients with anxiety and mood disorders. Psychological Assessment, 16, 244-254.
7.
ChenH.KeithT. Z.WeissL.ZhuJ.LiY. (2010). Testing for multigroup invariance of second-order WISC-IV structure across China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 677-682.
8.
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 464-504.
9.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups: A reconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal of Management, 25, 1-27.
10.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2000). Assessing extreme and acquiescence response sets in cross-cultural research using structural equations modeling. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 187-212.
11.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 233-255.
12.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Routledge.
13.
FinchW. H.FrenchB. F. (2013). Model invariance testing under different level of invariance. Paper presented at the Modern Modeling Methods Conference, Storrs, CT.
14.
Fonseca-PedreroE.WellsC.PainoM.Lemos-GiráldezS.Villazón-GarcíaÚ.SierraS.MuñizJ. (2010). Measurement invariance of the Reynolds Depression Adolescent Scale across gender and age. International Journal of Testing, 10, 133-148.
15.
FornellCLarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
16.
GagnéP. E.HancockG. R. (2006). Measurement model quality, sample size, and solution propriety in confirmatory factor models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, 65-83.
17.
HancockG. 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. Psychometrika, 66, 373-388.
18.
HancockG. R.FrenchB. F. (2013). Power analysis in covariance structure models. In HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed., pp. 117-159). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
19.
HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In CudeckR.du ToitS.SörbomD. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future—A festschrift in honor of Karl Joreskog. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
20.
HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (2011). The reliability paradox in assessing structural relations within covariance structure models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 306-324.
21.
HaydukL.CummingsG.BoaduK.Pazderka-RobinsonH.BoulianneS. (2007). Testing! Testing! One, two, three—Testing the theory in structural equation models!Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 841-850.
22.
HooglandJ. J.BoomsmaA. (1998). Robustness studies in covariance structure modeling: An overview and meta-analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 26, 329-367.
23.
HornJ. L.McArdleJ. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18, 117-144.
24.
HornJ. L.McArdleJ.MasonR. (1983). When is invariance not invariant: A practical scientist’s look at the ethereal concept of factor invariance. The Southern Psychologist, 1, 179-188.
25.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453.
26.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.
27.
JöreskogK. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36, 409-426.
KarcherM. J.SassD. (2010). A multicultural assessment of adolescent connectedness: testing measurement invariance across gender and ethnicity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 274-289.
30.
KlineR. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.
31.
LittleT. D.CardN. A.SlegersD. W.LedfordE. C. (2007). Representing contextual effects in multiple-group MACS models. In LittleT. D.BovairdJ. A.CardN. A. (Eds.), Modeling contextual effects in longitudinal studies (pp. 121-147). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
32.
MeadeA. W.BauerD. J. (2007). Power and precision in confirmatory factor analytic tests of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 611-635.
33.
MeadeA. W.JohnsonE. C.BraddyP. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 568-592.
MeredithW.TeresiJ. A. (2006). An essay on measurement and factorial invariance. Medical Care, 44, S69-S77.
36.
MillsapR. E.MeredithW. (2004, May). Factorial invariance: Historical trends and new developments. Paper presented at the Factor Analysis at 100 Conference, Chapel Hill, NC.
37.
MouraO.dos SantosR. A.RochaM.MatosP. M. (2010). Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale (CPIC): Factor structure and invariance across adolescents and emerging adults. International Journal of Testing, 10, 364-382.
SarisW. E.SatorraA.Van der VeldW. M. (2009). Testing structural equation models or detection of misspecifications?Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 561-582.
40.
SavickasM. L.PorfeliE. J. (2012). Career Adapt-Abilities Scale: Construction, reliability, and measurement equivalence across 13 countries. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 661-673.
41.
TeoT.LeeC. B.ChaiC. S.WongS. L. (2009). Assessing the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers in Singapore and Malaysia: A multigroup invariance analysis of the technology acceptance model (TAM). Computers & Education, 53, 1000-1009.
42.
VandenbergR. J.LanceC. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4-7.
43.
van de SchootR.LugtigP.HoxJ. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 486-492.
44.
van de VijverF.TanzerN. K. (2004). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: An overview. European Review of Applied Psychology, 54, 119-135.
45.
WuA. D.LiZ.ZumboB. D. (2007). Decoding the meaning of factorial invariance and updating the practice of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis: A demonstration with TIMSS data. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 12, 1-26.
46.
ZhangB.FokkemaM.CuijpersP.LiJ.SmitsN.BeekmanA. (2011). Measurement invariance of the Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression Scale (CES-D) among Chinese and Dutch elderly. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 74.
