A latent variable modeling method for studying measurement invariance when evaluating latent constructs with multiple binary or binary scored items with no guessing is outlined. The approach extends the continuous indicator procedure described by Raykov and colleagues, utilizes similarly the false discovery rate approach to multiple testing, and permits one to locate violations of measurement invariance in loading or threshold parameters. The discussed method does not require selection of a reference observed variable and is directly applicable for studying differential item functioning with one- or two-parameter item response models. The extended procedure is illustrated on an empirical data set.
BenjaminiY.HochbergY. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 57, 289-300.
4.
BollenK. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.
5.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
6.
de AyalaR. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York, NY: Guilford.
7.
de BoeckP.WilsonM. (2004). Explanatory item response models. New York, NY: Springer.
8.
DimitrovD. M. (2016). Examining differential functioning of binary items: IRT-based detection in the framework of confirmatory factor analysis (Technical Report 2016-1). Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: National Center for Assessment.
9.
HoutsC. R.CaiL. (2015). flexMIRT: Flexible multilevel multidimensional item analysis and test scoring. Chapel Hill, NC: Vector Psychometric Group.
10.
LordF. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical settings. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
MillsapR. E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
13.
MuthénB. O. (1984). A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical, and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika, 49, 115-132.
14.
MuthénB. O. (2002). Beyond SEM: General latent variable modeling. Behaviormetrika, 29, 81-117.
15.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2016). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
16.
RaykovT.MarcoulidesG. A. (2016). On the relationship between classical test theory and item response theory: From one to the other and back. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76, 325-338.
17.
RaykovT.MarcoulidesG. A.LiC.-H. (2012). Measurement invariance for latent constructs in multiple populations: A critical view and refocus. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72, 954-974.
18.
RaykovT.MarcoulidesG. A.MillsapR. E. (2013). Examining factorial invariance: A multiple testing procedure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73, 713-727.
19.
RaykovT.MarcoulidesG. A.LeeC.-L.ChangD. C. (2013). Studying differential item functioning via latent variable modeling: A note on a multiple testing procedure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73, 898-908.
20.
VandenbergR. J.LanceC. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4-70.
21.
WassermanL. W. (2004). All of statistics. New York, NY: Springer.
22.
WoodsC.CaiL.WangM. (2013). The Langer-improved Wald test for DIF testing with multiple groups: Evaluation and comparison to two-group IRT. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73, 532-547.
