Cited by 229Psychometric Methodologies and TestingEducational Assessment and PedagogyHealth Education and Validation

Measurement equivalence: A non-technical primer on categorical multi-group confirmatory factor analysis in school psychology

Pendergast, Laura L., von der Embse, Nathaniel, Kilgus, Stephen P., Eklund, Katie R.·2017·Journal of 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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jsp.2016.11.002

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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