The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Detecting Violations of Factorial Invariance Using Data-Based Specification Searches: A Monte Carlo Study
Abstract
In testing factorial invariance, researchers have often used a reference variable strategy in which the factor loading for a variable (i.e., reference variable) is fixed to 1 for identification. This commonly used method can be misleading if the chosen reference variable is actually a noninvariant item. This simulation study suggests an alternative method for testing factorial invariance and evaluates the performance of the method in specification searches based on the modification index. The results of the study showed that the proposed specification searches performed well when the number of noninvariant variables was relatively small and this performance improved as sample size increased and the size of group differences increased. When the number of noninvariant variables was relatively large, however, the method rarely succeeded in detecting the noninvariant items in the specification searches. Implications of the findings are discussed along with the limitations of the study.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
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
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
Measurement Invariance, Factor Analysis and Factorial Invariance
Meredith, W. (1993) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02294825 · Cited by 4,536
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.105.3.456 · Cited by 4,115
A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research
Horn, J. L., & Mcardle, J. J. (1992) · Experimental Aging Research · doi:10.1080/03610739208253916 · Cited by 1,592
Item bias and item response theory
Mellenbergh, G. J. (1989) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/0883-0355(89)90002-5 · Cited by 553
Cited by
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004 · Cited by 4,369
Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling
Howard, A. L. (2013) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705511.2013.769397 · Cited by 3,440
Measurement invariance: Review of practice and implications
Schmitt, N., & Kuljanin, G. (2008) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.03.003 · Cited by 759
Reliability and Validity of Ambulatory Cognitive Assessments
Sliwinski, M. J., Mogle, J. A., Hyun, J., Munoz, E., Smyth, J. M., & Lipton, R. B. (2018) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191116643164 · Cited by 357
Testing measurement invariance in longitudinal data with ordered-categorical measures.
Liu, Y., Millsap, R. E., West, S. G., Tein, J.-Y., Tanaka, R., & Grimm, K. J. (2017) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/met0000075 · Cited by 351
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Yoon, M., & Millsap, R. E.
- Venue
- Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2007-07-31
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 435-463
- ISSN
- 1070-5511 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-8007
- OpenAlex
- W2031576439
- Cited by
- 219
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 6.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Detecting Violations of Factorial Invariance Using Data-Based Specification Searches: A Monte Carlo Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10705510701301677
- The paper
- Yoon, M., & Millsap, R. E. (2007). Detecting Violations of Factorial Invariance Using Data-Based Specification Searches: A Monte Carlo Study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301677
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
