A study of the power associated with testing factor mean differences under violations of factorial invariance
Abstract
We examine the power associated with the test of factor mean differences when the assumption of factorial invariance is violated. Utilizing the Wald test for obtaining power, issues of model size, sample size, and total versus partial noninvariance are considered along with variation of actual factor mean differences. Results of a population study show that power is profoundly affected by true factor mean differences but is relatively unaffected by the degree of factor loading noninvariance. Inequality of sample size has a profound effect on power probabilities with power decreasing as sample sizes become increasingly disparate. Sample size variations operate such that power is uniformly lower when the group with the smaller generalized variance is associated with the smaller sample size. An increase in the number of variables yields uniformly larger power probabilities. No substantial differences are found between total and partial noninvariance. Results are related to work in the area of robustness of Hotelling's T 2 statistic and discussed in terms of asymptotic covariability of factor means and factor loadings. Implications for practice are considered.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Unequal sample sizes are known to adversely affect power in tests of factorial invariance.
“In addition, unequal sample sizes are known to adversely affect power in tests of factorial invariance (Kaplan & George, 1995).”
From Investigating Spearman's Hypothesis by Means of Multi-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (2000) · cites this paper as Kaplan & George, 1995
Cites
Simultaneous Factor Analysis in Several Populations
Jöreskog, K. G. (1971) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02291366 · Cited by 2,051 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance
Chen, F. F. (2007) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705510701301834 · Cited by 12,217 · see citing works
Lubke, G. (2003) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/s0160-2896(03)00051-5 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Investigating Spearman's Hypothesis by Means of Multi-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Dolan, C. V. (2000) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3501_2 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kaplan, D., & George, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Delaware (US)
- Venue
- Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1995-01
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 101-118
- ISSN
- 1070-5511 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-8007
- OpenAlex
- W2010431512
- Cited by
- 83
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 1.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal (publishedVersion)
- 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
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Statistical Methods and Models
- Keywords
- measurement invariance, statistical power, Wald test, generalized variance, multiple group comparison
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