The purpose of the current study was to assess the gender invariance of an a priori four-factor solution of behavioral consequences of drinking. Results evidenced strong partial measurement invariance, with marginal structural invariance, which signals that the underlying constructs possessed the same theoretical structure for both men and women.
ArriolaK. R. J.UsdanS.MaysD.WeitzelJ. A.CremeensJ.MartinR. J. . . . BernhardtJ. M. (2009). Reliability and validity of the alcohol consequences expectations scale. American Journal of Health Behavior, 33, 504–512.
2.
BentlerP. M. (2004). EQS 6: Structural equation program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
3.
BrannickM. T. (1995). Critical comments on applying covariance structure modeling. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 201–213.
4.
BrykA. S.RaudenbushS. W. (1988). Heterogeneity of variance in experimental studies: A challenge to conventional interpretations. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 396–404.
5.
ByrneB. M. (1988). The Self Description Questionnaire III: Testing for equivalent factorial validity across ability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 397–406.
6.
ByrneB. M.ShavelsonR. J.MuthénB. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466.
7.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of- fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 233–255.
8.
CollinsR. L.McNairL. D. (2002). Minority women and alcohol use. Alcohol Research and Health, 26, 251–256.
9.
DerbyD.SmithT. J. (2008). Exploring the factorial structure for behavioral consequences of college student drinking. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 41, 32–41.
10.
DerbyD.SmithT. J. (2010, May). The structure of behavioral consequences of drinking among 4-year college students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
11.
DillmanD. A.SmythJ. D.ChristianL. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
12.
DimitrovD. M. (2010). Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43, 121–149.
13.
HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In CudeckR.ToitS. D.SōrbomD. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future (pp. 195–216). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
14.
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), 1–55.
15.
KarollB. R. (2002). Women and alcohol-use disorders: A review of important knowledge and its implications for social work practitioners. Journal of Social Work, 2, 337–356.
16.
KellowayE. K. (1995). Structural equation modelling in perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 215–224.
17.
KuoM.AdlafE. M.LeeH.GliksmanL.DemersA.WechslerH. (2002). More Canadian students drink but American students drink more: Comparing college alcohol use in two countries. Addiction, 97, 1583–1592.
18.
MarshH. W.HocevarD. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First- and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 562–582.
19.
MessickS. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749.
20.
MulliganR. A. S.BryantJ. B. (2000). Gender and context differences in alcohol expectancies. Addiction, 140, 240–253.
21.
RaykovT.DimitrovD. M.AsparouhovT. (2010). Evaluation of scale reliability with binary measures using latent variable modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 17, 265–279.
22.
RhemtullaM.Brosseau-LiardP.SavaleiV. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17, 354–373.
23.
SatorraA.BentlerP. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514.
24.
SullivanM.RislerE. (2002). Understanding college alcohol abuse and academic performance: Selecting appropriate intervention strategies. Journal of College Counseling, 5, 114–123.
25.
WechslerH. (2005). Harvard School of Public Health college alcohol study. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.
26.
WechslerH.KuoM. (2000). College students define binge drinking and estimate its prevalence: Results of a national survey. Journal of American College Health, 49, 57–64.
27.
WechslerH.LeeJ. E.KuoM.SeibringM.NelsonT. F.LeeH. (2002). Trends in college binge drinking during a period of increased prevention efforts. Journal of American College Health, 50, 203–217.
28.
WechslerH.LeeJ. E.NelsonT. F.KuoM. (2002). Underage college students’ drinking behavior, access to alcohol, and the influence of deterrence policies: Findings from the Harvard School of Public Health College alcohol study. Journal of American College Health, 50,223–236.
29.
WeitzmanE. R.KawachiI. (2000). Giving means receiving: The protective effect of social capital on binge drinking on college campuses. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 1936–1939.
