Cited by 34Psychometric Methodologies and TestingPersonality Traits and PsychologyPsychological Testing and Assessment

The Practical Effects of Measurement Invariance: Gender Invariance in Two Big Five Personality Measures

Ock, Jisoo, McAbee, Samuel T., Mulfinger, Evan, Oswald, Frederick L.·2020·Assessment

Abstract

The essence of measurement invariance (MI) analysis is to test the assumption that observed scores on a scale accurately reflect respondents’ standings on a measured construct. Based on exploratory structural equation modeling, the current study examines gender-based MI in two Big Five measures of personality: the Mini-IPIP, and the Big Five Inventory (BFI) facet scales. We report results for MI based on both model fit indices and a practical significance index that quantifies the extent of noninvariance (i.e., d MACS ). From the latter, we partition the observed group mean differences in scale scores into construct-irrelevant group differences versus construct-relevant group differences. In measures of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Neuroticism across instruments, results supported metric invariance but not scalar invariance. That said, findings of statistical noninvariance were generally small in terms of practical effects, although some notable variability in the effects was evident. Overall, the current results provide evidence regarding gender-based MI of Big Five personality measures that are more detailed than that provided in past work. More generally, this study also provides useful guidance for future researchers investigating both the statistical and practical significance of measurement invariance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1073191119885018

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ock, J., McAbee, S. T., Mulfinger, E., & Oswald, F. L.
Affiliations
  • Pusan National University (KR)
  • Bowling Green State University (US)
  • Rice University (US)
Corresponding author
Ock, Jisoo
Venue
Assessment
Published
2019-11-05
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
657-674
ISSN
  • 1073-1911 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3489
OpenAlex
W2985922885
Cited by
34
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
FWCI
3.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Assessment (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
measurement invariance, gender differences, Big Five personality traits, Big Five Inventory, metric invariance, scalar invariance, agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism
MeSH terms
Extraversion, Psychological, Humans, Personality, Personality Disorders, Personality Inventory, Psychometrics

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