Testing for Factorial Invariance in the Context of Construct Validation

By D. Dimitrov. 2010

1,147 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Computer Networks and Communications, Food Science, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/32d6831d332a4673e4bbb50a3805e72846d295bc

How researchers see this paper

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

In Computer Networks and Communications

In Food Science

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Correlation between attitudes, concerns, self‐efficacy and teaching intentions in inclusive education evidence from German pre‐service teachers using international scales (2018, methodology): “Lastly, we tested the three-factor structure (instruction, collaboration and managing behaviour) of the TEIP proposed by Park, Dimitrov, Das, et al. (2016), with items 6, 14 and 17 being removed.”
Comparisons of Three Empirical Methods for Partial Factorial Invariance: Forward, Backward, and Factor-Ratio Tests (2016, background): “However, we have to be aware that there is no universally accepted rule for the number of items that can be freed in the literature (Byrne et al., 1989; Dimitrov, 2010; Millsap & Olivera-Aguilar, 2012; Reise et al., 1993).”
Perseverance Counts but Consistency Does Not! Validating the Short Grit Scale in a Collectivist Setting (2016, methodology): “We followed a forward, stepwise approach, also called sequential constraint imposition (Dimitrov 2010).”
Psychometric Properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire–II for Chinese College Students and Elite Chinese Athletes (2014, methodology): “A sequential model testing approach was employed, via multisample CFA, to examine whether the AAQ-II displayed invariance across gender (see Dimitrov, 2010).”
Testing Measurement Invariance and Comparing Latent Factor Means Within a Confirmatory Factor Analysis Framework (2011, methodology): “The most common approach is the forward approach (sequentially adding more model constraints), whereas the backward approach (sequentially removing model constraints) appears less common (Dimitrov, 2010).”
Conducting Measurement Invariance Tests with Ordinal Data: A Guide for Social Work Researchers (2015, methodology): “Many researchers consider partial measurement invariance acceptable if the proportion of noninvariant parameters to all parameters tested is small (Dimitrov, 2010; Millsap & Olivera-Alguilar, 2012; Muthén & Asparouhov, 2002; Sass, 2011).”
The American Identity Measure: Development and Validation across Ethnic Group and Immigrant Generation (2012, background): “Indeed, the psychometric literature suggests that, in the absence of clear evidence that a measure performs similarly across groups, mean differences between or among groups may represent some unknown combination of differences in measurement structure and differences in levels of the underlying con”
Students’ willingness to attend EFL classes with respect to teachers’ credibility, stroke, and success: A cross-cultural study of Iranian and Iraqi students’ perceptions (2021, background): “Evidence of both the metric and scalar invariance indicates that the presence of any difference in the factor score is likely to be the indicator of possible group differences rather than measurement artifact or item bias (Dimitrov, 2010; Meredith & Teresi, 2006).”
Altering the Trajectory of the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (2017, background): “Both these relative fit indicators depend on the average size of the correlations among measures in the data and are minimally affected by sample size (Dimitrov, 2010); thus, they are useful even with small samples.”
Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) (2012, background): “112], since more than 80% (19 of 23) of the factor-loading parameters were equivalent across both groups (Dimitrov, 2010): all for Restraint and Eating Concern, 4 for Weight Concern, and 5 for Shape Concern.”
Testing Measurement Invariance for a Second-Order Factor. A Cross-National Test of the Alienation Scale (2018, methodology): “Dimitrov (2010) followed their approach and presented an empirical example using the software package Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2016).”