The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Factorial Invariance Within Longitudinal Structural Equation Models: Measuring the Same Construct Across Time
Open accessAbstract
Charting change in behavior as a function of age and investigating longitudinal relations among constructs are primary goals of developmental research. Traditionally, researchers rely on a single measure (e.g., scale score) for a given construct for each person at each occasion of measurement, assuming that measure reflects the same construct at each occasion. With multiple indicators of a latent construct at each time of measurement, the researcher can evaluate whether factorial invariance holds. If factorial invariance constraints are satisfied, latent variable scores at each time of measurement are on the same metric and stronger conclusions are warranted. This article discusses factorial invariance in longitudinal studies, contrasting analytic approaches and highlighting strengths of the multiple-indicator approach to modeling developmental processes.
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
Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 · Cited by 41,941
Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005 · Cited by 27,200
Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Bentler, P. M. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 · Cited by 25,266
Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.88.3.588 · Cited by 19,023
Testing Structural Equation Models.
Mueller, C. W., Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1994) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2074955 · Cited by 14,120
A Reliability Coefficient for Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02291170 · Cited by 7,330 · cited 1×
“…sample size is large, differences in model fit should also be evaluated using differences in practical fit indices such as the TuckerLewis index (Tucker & Lewis, 1973), the comparative fit index (Bentler, 1990; McDonald & Marsh, 1990), and the root mean squared error of approximation (Steiger &…”
BackgroundTo parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1207/s15328007sem0902_1 · Cited by 6,552
Self-citationMeasurement 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
Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.112.4.558 · Cited by 3,605
Cited by
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004 · Cited by 4,369
Life-span development of self-esteem and its effects on important life outcomes.
Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Widaman, K. F. (2012) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0025558 · Cited by 860
Self-citationTesting prospective effects in longitudinal research: Comparing seven competing cross-lagged models.
Orth, U., Clark, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Robins, R. W. (2021) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspp0000358 · Cited by 801
Developmental cognitive neuroscience using latent change score models: A tutorial and applications
Kievit, R. A., Brandmaier, A. M., Ziegler, G., van Harmelen, A.-L., de Mooij, S. M. M., Moutoussis, M., Goodyer, I. M., Bullmore, E., Jones, P. B., Fonagy, P., et al. (2018) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2017.11.007 · Cited by 516
Gu, J., Strauss, C., Crane, C., Barnhofer, T., Karl, A., Cavanagh, K., & Kuyken, W. (2016) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/pas0000263 · Cited by 431
“Once configural invariance has been established, the next steps would be to test for weak factorial invariance (invariant factor loadings across time), then strong factorial invariance (invariant factor loadings and intercepts across time), and finally strict factorial invariance (invariant factor loadings, intercepts…”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Widaman, K. F., Ferrer, E., & Conger, R. D.
- Venue
- Child Development Perspectives
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-03-11
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 10-18
- ISSN
- 1750-8592 (ISSN-L)
- 1750-8606
- OpenAlex
- W2041580163
- Cited by
- 890
- References
- 63
- FWCI
- 20.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Factorial Invariance Within Longitudinal Structural Equation Models: Measuring the Same Construct Across Time. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00110.x
- The paper
- Widaman, K. F., Ferrer, E., & Conger, R. D. (2010). Factorial Invariance Within Longitudinal Structural Equation Models: Measuring the Same Construct Across Time. Child Development Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00110.x
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.
