Cited by 358Psychometric Methodologies and TestingStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceMental Health Research Topics

Testing measurement invariance in longitudinal data with ordered-categorical measures.

Open access
Liu, Yu, Millsap, Roger E., West, Stephen G., Tein, Jenn-Yun, Tanaka, Rika, Grimm, Kevin J.·2017·Psychological Methods

Abstract

A goal of developmental research is to examine individual changes in constructs over time. The accuracy of the models answering such research questions hinges on the assumption of longitudinal measurement invariance: The repeatedly measured variables need to represent the same construct in the same metric over time. Measurement invariance can be studied through factor models examining the relations between the observed indicators and the latent constructs. In longitudinal research, ordered-categorical indicators such as self- or observer-report Likert scales are commonly used, and these measures often do not approximate continuous normal distributions. The present didactic article extends previous work on measurement invariance to the longitudinal case for ordered-categorical indicators. We address a number of problems that commonly arise in testing measurement invariance with longitudinal data, including model identification and interpretation, sparse data, missing data, and estimation issues. We also develop a procedure and associated R program for gauging the practical significance of the violations of invariance. We illustrate these issues with an empirical example using a subscale from the Mexican American Cultural Values scale. Finally, we provide comparisons of the current capabilities of 3 major latent variable programs (lavaan, Mplus, OpenMx) and computer scripts for addressing longitudinal measurement invariance. (PsycINFO Database Record

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/met0000075

Cites

42 of 43 references verified1 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Bollen KA 1989 Structural equations with latent variables New York Wiley
  2. Browne MW Arminger G 1995 Specification and estimation of mean-and covariance-structure models Arminger G Clogg CC Sobel ME Handbook of statistical modeling for the social and behavioral sciences 185 249 New York Springer
  3. Grimm KJ Ram N Estabrook R in press Growth modeling: An illustrative approach New York Guilford Press
  4. Millsap RE 2011 Statistical approaches to measurement invariance New York Routledge
  5. Mislevy RJ in press Missing responses in item response theory van der Linden WJ Hambleton RK Handbook of modern item response theory 2 2 Boca Raton, FL Chapman & Hall/CRC Press
  6. Rosseel Y 2012 lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling Journal of Statistical Software 48 2 1 36 http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/
  7. Rubin DB 1987 Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys New York J. Wiley & Sons
  8. Samejima F 1969 Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores Psychometric Monograph No. 17 Richmond, VA Psychometric Society Retrieved from http://www.psychometrika.org/journal/online/MN17.pdf
  9. Wirth RJ 2008 The effects of measurement non-invariance on parameter estimation in latent growth models Doctoral dissertation Retrieved from ProQuest dissertation and theses database. (UMI No. 3331053)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, Y., Millsap, R. E., West, S. G., Tein, J.-Y., Tanaka, R., & Grimm, K. J.
Affiliations
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • University Health Network (CA)
Venue
Psychological Methods
Published
2017-09
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
486-506
ISSN
  • 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1463
OpenAlex
W2395889112
Cited by
351
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3
FWCI
16.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Methods (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH68920)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
measurement invariance, longitudinal data, factor models, system identification, data sparsity, missing data, developmental research
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Humans, Individuality, Longitudinal Studies, Models, Statistical

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