Assessing the Hypothesis of Measurement Invariance in the Context of Large-Scale International Surveys

By Leslie Rutkowski, Dubravka Svetina. 2014

667 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Demography, Education, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2d1645141e73d15772cee743862eb20d75667709

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Demography

1. M. O’driscoll
2. Tammy D. Allen
3. Cary L. Cooper
4. E. S. Kim
5. Yan Wang
6. Paul E. Spector
7. Marc H. Bornstein
8. Diana Boer

In Education

1. Tammy D. Allen
2. Cary L. Cooper
3. Jia He
4. Ulla Kinnunen *
5. E. S. Kim
6. Yan Wang
7. Chang‐qin Lu
8. Paul E. Spector

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. Paul E. Spector
2. O. Siu
3. M. O’driscoll
4. Tammy D. Allen
5. Jia He
6. Ulla Kinnunen *
7. E. S. Kim
8. Yan Wang

Citations in the corpus

• Measurement Invariance Testing with Many Groups: A Comparison of Five Approaches (2017, methodology): “When the number of groups is larger (e.g., 10 or 20), Rutkowski and Svetina (2014) recommended a more liberal criterion such as ΔCFI ≤ .02 and ΔRMSEA ≤ .03 for the metric invariance test although they still recommended the traditional ΔCFI ≤ .01 and ΔRMSEA ≤ .015 for the scalar invariance test.”
• On Detecting Systematic Measurement Error in Cross-Cultural Research: A Review and Critical Reflection on Equivalence and Invariance Tests (2018, background): “Recently, to accommodate large-scale international assessments, more liberal cutoff criteria were introduced for over 10-culture comparisons (see Rutkowski & Svetina, 2014; cutoff for RMSEA = .10, ΔCFI = .02, and ΔRMSEA = .03 from configural to metric invariance model, and both ΔCFI and ΔRMSEA…”
• Measurement Invariance of the Satisfaction With Life Scale Across 26 Countries (2017, methodology): “However, when many groups are included, RMSEA tends to become greater than .05 regardless of actual model fit (e.g., Rutkowski & Svetina, 2014).”
• Measurement Invariance Conventions and Reporting: The State of the Art and Future Directions for Psychological Research (2016, methodology): “…of a -.01 change in CFI for nested models is commonly used, but other researchers have suggested different criteria for CFI (Meade et al., 2008; Rutkowski & Svetina, 2014) or the use of other alternative fit indices (e.g., ΔRMSEA, ΔSRMR; Chen, 2007; Meade et al., 2008), and some question the…”
• The Relations Among School Climate, Instructional Quality, and Achievement Motivation in Mathematics (2016, neutral): “This step was necessary to ensure that the measures were, to a suf fi cient degree, comparable and to exclude measurement bias as a potential source of cross-country differences (Rutkowski and Svetina 2014).”
• Evaluating Measurement Invariance of TALIS 2013 Complex Scales: Comparison between Continuous and Categorical Multiple-Group Confirmatory Factor Analyses (2014, methodology): “For example, Rutkowski and Svetina (2013) reported a more liberal RMSEA and a more stringent CFI should be expected, thus suggesting that more relaxed cut-offs ought to be used when the number of groups compared is greater than two in the continuous modelling.”