An Essay on Measurement and Factorial Invariance

By W. Meredith, Jeanne A. Teresi. Medical Care, 2006

673 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Clinical Psychology, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fd1f146067ad1cf2c453aabf863d63d5a3d6147b

How researchers see this paper

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

In Applied Psychology

In Clinical Psychology

In Management Science and Operations Research

Citations in the corpus

Methodological Measurement Fruitfulness of Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM): New Approaches to Key Substantive Issues in Motivation and Engagement (2011, methodology): “The evaluation of model invariance over different groups (e.g., gender) or over time for the same group is widely applied in SEM studies (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1979; Meredith & Teresi, 2006).”
Positive Orientation Across Three Cultures (2012, methodology): “After the fit of the POS model was established separately for each of the three groups, we used multigroup CFAs (MCFA) to examine measurement invariance (Meredith & Teresi, 2006).”
A Test for Cluster Bias: Detecting Violations of Measurement Invariance Across Clusters in Multilevel Data (2013, methodology): “In the terminology of Meredith (1993; Meredith & Teresi, 2006), we distinguish configural invariance, with equal patterns of factor loadings across groups, weak factorial invariance, with equal values of factor loadings, strong factorial invariance, with equal intercepts in addition to equal values…”
Application of Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling to Evaluate the Academic Motivation Scale (2015, methodology): “…of the measurement model across gender was tested in the following sequence that was adjusted to the ordered-categorical nature of the items (see Meredith & Teresi, 2006; Morin et al., 2011): 1) configural invariance; 2) weak invariance; 3) strong invariance (invariance of the loadings and…”
Construct Validity of the Multidimensional Structure of Bullying and Victimization: An Application of Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling. (2011, methodology): “The evaluation of model invariance over different groups (e.g., gender) is widely applied in SEM studies (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1979; Meredith, 1993; Meredith & Teresi, 2006).”
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).”
Development of a Public Service Motivation Measurement Scale: Corroborating and Extending Perry's Measurement Instrument (2008, background): “A “fixed loadings approach” (MacCallum 1994 ) or “pattern” or “metric” invariance (Meredith and Teresi 2006 ; Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998 ), depending whether the terms comes from cross-validation theory or measurement invariance theory, refers to a situation where only the factor loadings are”
Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (2009, neutral): “The evaluation of model invariance over different groups (e.g., gender or ethnicity) or over different occasions for the same group is widely applied in SEM studies (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1979; Meredith, 1993; Meredith & Teresi, 2006).”
Do Self-Report Instruments Allow Meaningful Comparisons Across Diverse Population Groups?: Testing Measurement Invariance Using the Confirmatory Factor Analysis Framework (2006, background): “This hierarchy of tests provides increasing evidence of measurement invariance.(2,12) The results of these tests help to determine which types of quantitative group comparisons are defensible.”
Testing Similarity Effects with Dyadic Response Surface Analysis (2018, background): “For example, subgroups might have a different understanding of the items, as has been extensively discussed in the literature on measurement invariance and differential item functioning (for an overview, see Meredith & Teresi, 2006).”
Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling, Integrating CFA and EFA: Application to Students' Evaluations of University Teaching (2009, neutral): “The evaluation of model invariance over different groups (e.g., gender or ethnicity) or over different occasions for the same group is widely applied in SEM studies (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1979; Meredith, 1993; Meredith & Teresi, 2006).”
Testing Measurement Invariance: A Comparison of Multiple-Group Categorical CFA and IRT (2011, background): “Meredith and Teresi (2006) and Borsboom (2006) discussed extensively the importance of measurement invariance and practical impact of the violation of measurement invariance (i.e., measurement bias).”
Testing for Factorial Invariance in the Context of Construct Validation (2010, background): “…for factorial invariance of CFA models addresses the configural invariance, measurement invariance, and structural invariance of the model (e.g., Byrne, 2004; Byrne et al., 1989; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002; Drasgow & Kanfer, 1985; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1979; Meredith, 1993; Meredith & Teresi, 2006).”
A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. (2010, positive): “Marsh et al. (2009) proposed a 13-model taxonomy of invariance tests that integrated factor analysis (e.g., Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1988; Marsh, 1994, 2007) and measurement invariance (e.g., Meredith, 1964, 1993; Meredith & Teresi, 2006) traditions to testing invariance over multiple groups or occasions.”