Cited by 414Psychometric Methodologies and TestingEducational Assessment and PedagogyPsychological Testing and Assessment

Evaluating the Impact of Partial Factorial Invariance on Selection in Two Populations

Millsap, Roger E., Kwok, Oi-Man·2004·Psychological Methods

Abstract

Studies of factorial invariance examine whether a common factor model holds across multiple populations with identical parameter values. Partial factorial invariance exists when some, but not all, parameters are invariant. The literature on factorial invariance is unclear about what should be done if partial invariance is found. One approach to this problem evaluates the impact of partial invariance on accuracy of selection on the basis of a composite of the measures whose factor structure is being studied. Assuming a single-factor model holds, accuracy of selection using the composite is evaluated under varying degrees of partial invariance. A variety of examples are presented with discussion of extensions and limitations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/1082-989x.9.1.93

Cites

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?

  • To compare test scores of individuals from different populations or groups in a meaningful and reliable way, it is essential for any diagnostic instrument used to provide measures that have the same meaning across those groups.

    “In order to be able to compare test scores of individuals from different populations or groups in a meaningful and reliable way, it is essential for any diagnostic instrument used to provide measures that have the same meaning across those groups in question (e.g., Chen and Zhu 2012; Millsap and Kwok 2004; Wicherts 2016).”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 45 · Cited by 414

Authors
Millsap, R. E., & Kwok, O.-M.
Affiliations
Arizona State University (US)
Venue
Psychological Methods
Published
2004
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
93-115
ISSN
  • 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1463
OpenAlex
W2031447888
Cited by
414
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 19
FWCI
13.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Methods (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 › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
measurement invariance, selection accuracy, composite score, one-factor model
MeSH terms
Choice Behavior, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Humans, Models, Psychological, Psychology

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