Measurement equivalence: A non-technical primer on categorical multi-group confirmatory factor analysis in school psychology
Abstract
Evidence-based interventions (EBIs) have become a central component of school psychology research and practice, but EBIs are dependent upon the availability and use of evidence-based assessments (EBAs) with diverse student populations. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MG-CFA) is an analytical tool that can be used to examine the validity and measurement equivalence/invariance of scores across diverse groups. The objective of this article is to provide a conceptual and procedural overview of categorical MG-CFA, as well as an illustrated example based on data from the Social and Academic Behavior Risk Screener (SABRS) - a tool designed for use in school-based interventions. This article serves as a non-technical primer on the topic of MG-CFA with ordinal (rating scale) data and does so through the framework of examining equivalence of measures used for EBIs within multi-tiered models - an understudied topic. To go along with the illustrated example, we have provided supplementary files that include sample data, Mplus input code, and an annotated guide for understanding the input code (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2016.11.002). Data needed to reproduce analyses in this article are available as supplemental materials (online only) in the Appendix of this article.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The differing conceptualizations of WM across the WISC-IV and WISC-V indicate those scores do not meet the basic assumptions for measurement invariance or test equating.
“Regardless of whether users elect to interpret the ancillary AWM score, the differing conceptualizations of WM across the WISC -IV and WISC -V indicate those scores do not meet the basic assumptions for measurement invariance or test equating (Pendergast et al. 2017).”
From Beyond Primary Assessment on the WISC-V: An Investigation of the Structural Validity of the Ancillary Scores (2025) · cites this paper as Pendergast et al. 2017
Cites
Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1207/s15328007sem0902_5 · Cited by 16,280 · see citing works
Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance
Chen, F. F. (2007) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705510701301834 · Cited by 12,217 · see citing works
Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008) · Dublin Institute of Technology · doi:10.21427/d7cf7r · Cited by 8,746 · see citing works
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2 · Cited by 6,691 · see citing works
Sample size in factor analysis.
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.4.1.84 · Cited by 5,497 · see citing works
Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164405282485 · Cited by 2,454 · see citing works
TEACHER’S CORNER: Testing Measurement Invariance of Second-Order Factor Models
Chen, F. F., Sousa, K. H., & West, S. G. (2005) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1203_7 · Cited by 1,032 · see citing works
Chen, F. F. (2008) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0013193 · Cited by 962 · see citing works
Treating Ordinal Scales as Interval Scales: An Attempt To Resolve the Controversy
KNAPP, T. R. (1990) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-199003000-00019 · Cited by 271 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sischka, P. E., Costa, A. P., Steffgen, G., & Schmidt, A. F. (2020) · Journal of Affective Disorders Reports · doi:10.1016/j.jadr.2020.100020 · Cited by 245 · see citing works
Greiff, S., & Scherer, R. (2018) · European Journal of Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000487 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
McGill, R. J., Dombrowski, S. C., & Canivez, G. L. (2025) · Psychology in the Schools · doi:10.1002/pits.23457 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“V indicate those scores do not meet the basic assumptions for measurement invariance or test equating (Pendergast et al. 2017).”
- Authors
- Pendergast, L. L., von der Embse, N., Kilgus, S. P., & Eklund, K. R.
- Affiliations
- Temple University (US)
- University of Missouri (US)
- Corresponding author
- Pendergast, Laura L.
- Venue
- Journal of School Psychology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-02
- Volume
- 60
- Pages
- 65-82
- ISSN
- 0022-4405 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2570588391
- Cited by
- 229
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 27 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 6
- FWCI
- 14.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of School Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
- Keywords
- measurement invariance, multi-group confirmatory factor analysis, categorical data, ordinal data, evidence-based interventions, evidence-based assessment, multi-tiered systems of support, school-based screening, student diversity
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Child, Child Behavior, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Humans, Psychology, Educational, Psychometrics, Social Behavior
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review