Cited by 363Psychometric Methodologies and TestingEducational Assessment and PedagogyStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

A more general model for testing measurement invariance and differential item functioning

Open access
Bauer, Daniel J.·2017·Psychological Methods

Abstract

The evaluation of measurement invariance is an important step in establishing the validity and comparability of measurements across individuals. Most commonly, measurement invariance has been examined using 1 of 2 primary latent variable modeling approaches: the multiple groups model or the multiple-indicator multiple-cause (MIMIC) model. Both approaches offer opportunities to detect differential item functioning within multi-item scales, and thereby to test measurement invariance, but both approaches also have significant limitations. The multiple groups model allows 1 to examine the invariance of all model parameters but only across levels of a single categorical individual difference variable (e.g., ethnicity). In contrast, the MIMIC model permits both categorical and continuous individual difference variables (e.g., sex and age) but permits only a subset of the model parameters to vary as a function of these characteristics. The current article argues that moderated nonlinear factor analysis (MNLFA) constitutes an alternative, more flexible model for evaluating measurement invariance and differential item functioning. We show that the MNLFA subsumes and combines the strengths of the multiple group and MIMIC models, allowing for a full and simultaneous assessment of measurement invariance and differential item functioning across multiple categorical and/or continuous individual difference variables. The relationships between the MNLFA model and the multiple groups and MIMIC models are shown mathematically and via an empirical demonstration. (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/met0000077

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 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: 10

  1. Byrne BM Shavelson RJ Muthén B 1989 Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance Psychological Bulletin 105 456 466
  2. Farrington DP 1986 Age and crime Tonry M Morris N Crime and justice: An annual review of research 7 189 250 Chicago University of Chicago Press
  3. Jöreskog KG Goldberger AS 1975 Estimation of a model with multiple indicators and multiple causes of a single latent variable Journal of the American Statistical Association 70 631 639
  4. Lewis M 2007 Early Emotional Development Slater A Lewis M Introduction to Infant Development 2 216 232 England Oxford University Press
  5. Mellenbergh GJ 1989 Item bias and item response theory International Journal of Educational Research 13 127 143
  6. Millsap RE 2011 Statistical approaches to measurement invariance New York, NY Routledge
  7. Molinengo G Testa S 2010 Analysis of the psychometric properties of an assessment tool for deviant behavior in adolescence European Journal of Psychological Assessment 26 108 115
  8. Sörbom D 1974 A general method for studying differences in factor means and factor structure between groups British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 27 229 239
  9. Thissen D Steinberg L Gerrard M 1986 Beyond group-mean differences: The concept of item bias Psychological Bulletin 99 118 128
  10. Thissen D Steinberg L Kuang D 2002 Quick and easy implementation of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure for controlling the false positive rate in multiple comparisons Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 27 77 83

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bauer, D. J.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Bauer, Daniel J.
Venue
Psychological Methods
Published
2017-09
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
507-526
ISSN
  • 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1463
OpenAlex
W2420991929
Cited by
363
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 57 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 2
FWCI
16.81
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 Institutes of Health (R01 DA034636)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
measurement invariance, differential item functioning, moderated nonlinear factor analysis, latent variable models, measurement validity
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Humans, Psychometrics, 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