Cited by 7,997Psychometric Methodologies and TestingSocial and Intergroup PsychologyEducational Assessment and Pedagogy

A Review and Synthesis of the Measurement Invariance Literature: Suggestions, Practices, and Recommendations for Organizational Research

Vandenberg, Robert J., Lance, Charles E.·2000·Organizational Research Methods

Abstract

The establishment of measurement invariance across groups is a logical prerequisite to conducting substantive cross-group comparisons (e.g., tests of group mean differences, invariance of structural parameter estimates), but measurement invariance is rarely tested in organizational research. In this article, the authors (a) elaborate the importance of conducting tests of measurement invariance across groups, (b) review recommended practices for conducting tests of measurement invariance, (c) review applications of measurement invariance tests in substantive applications, (d) discuss issues involved in tests of various aspects of measurement invariance, (e) present an empirical example of the analysis of longitudinal measurement invariance, and (f) propose an integrative paradigm for conducting sequences of measurement invariance tests.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/109442810031002

Cites

144 of 144 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) is the most commonly used technique for investigating measurement invariance across different groups.

    “Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) is the most commonly used technique for investigating measurement invariance across different groups. In MGCFA, a theoretical model is compared with the observed structures in multiple independent samples (Vandenberg and Lance 2000).”
  • Differences observed between Spain and Italy in online sexual harassment perpetration are due to variations in prevalence rates, not discrepancies in participants' interpretation of the instrument.

    “We can therefore conclude that the differences observed between countries are due to variations in prevalence rates, not discrepancies in participants’ interpretation of the instrument (Putnick & Bornstein, 2016; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E.
Affiliations
University of Georgia (US)
Venue
Organizational Research Methods
Published
2000-01
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
4-70
ISSN
  • 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7425
OpenAlex
W2130653485
Cited by
7,997
References
144
Citations by year
2026: 724 · 2025: 485 · 2024: 497 · 2023: 520 · 2022: 496 · 2021: 530 · 2020: 514 · 2019: 407 · 2018: 392 · 2017: 394 · 2016: 375 · 2015: 389 · 2014: 387 · 2013: 350 · 2012: 288
FWCI
40.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Organizational Research Methods (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
Keywords
measurement invariance, cross-group comparison, longitudinal measurement invariance, structural equation modeling, group mean differences, organizational analysis

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