A Non-arbitrary Method of Identifying and Scaling Latent Variables in SEM and MACS Models

By T. Little, David W. Slegers, Noel A. Card. 2006

576 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Minority Stress Among Transgender Adolescents: The Role of Peer Victimization, School Belonging, and Ethnicity (2018, unknown): “…on three levels—configural invariance (i.e., the pattern of fixed and free parameters is the same), weak factorial invariance (i.e., loadings have the same value in each group), and strong factorial invariance (i.e., measured intercepts have the same value in each group) (Little et al. 2006).”
Measuring Online Communication Attitude: Instrument Development and Validation (2009, methodology): “…fit between the manifest indicators and latent constructs of the MOCA scale, a subsequent confirmatory model added aCompletely standardized solution. bLatent means and standard deviations obtained by identifying the model via the contrast coding method described in Little, Slegers, and Card (2006).”
Testing measurement invariance using multigroup CFA: differences between educational groups in human values measurement (2009, methodology): “a new approach by Little, Slegers, and Card (2006) to scale the latent variables and to set their”
A cross-country and cross-time comparison of the human values measurements with the second round of the European Social Survey (2008, unknown): “Sörbom (1974) has shown that in order to be able to compare means across groups, mean levels have to be constrained to zero in one group to get the model identified (for alternatives see Little, Slegers, and Card 2006).”