Testing Factorial Invariance across Groups: A Reconceptualization and Proposed New Method

Many cross-cultural researchers are concerned with factorial invariance; that is, with whether or not members of different cultures associate survey items, or similar measures, with similar constructs. Researchers usually test items for factorial invariance using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). CFA, however, poses certain problems that must be dealt with. Primary among them is standardization, the process that assigns units of measurement to the constructs (latent variables). Two standardization procedures and several minor variants have been reported in the literature, but using these procedures when testing for factorial invariance can lead to inaccurate results. In this paper we review basic theory, and propose an extension of Byrne, Shavelson, and Muthgn’s (1989) procedure for identifying non-invariant items. The extended procedure solves the standardization problem by performing a systematic comparison of all pairs of factor loadings across groups. A numerical example based upon a large published data set is presented to illustrate the utility of the new procedure, particularly with regard to partial factorial invariance.

[1]  Carol R. Ember,et al.  Cross-Cultural Research Methods , 2000 .

[2]  Michael R. Mullen.  Diagnosing Measurement Equivalence in Cross-National Research , 1995 .

[3]  Jagdip Singh,et al.  Measurement Issues in Cross-National Research , 1995 .

[4]  Maddy Janssens,et al.  Confirmatory Cross-Cultural Research: Testing the Viability of a Corporation-Wide Safety Policy , 1995 .

[5]  Robert J. Vandenberg,et al.  A Central Question in Cross-Cultural Research: Do Employees of Different Cultures Interpret Work-related Measures in an Equivalent Manner?: , 1994 .

[6]  B. Byrne,et al.  Testing for the Factorial Validity, Replication, and Invariance of a Measuring Instrument: A Paradigmatic Application Based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory. , 1994, Multivariate behavioral research.

[7]  H. Triandis.  Cross-cultural industrial and organizational psychology. , 1994 .

[8]  F. Vijver,et al.  The incomplete equivalence of the paper-and-pencil and computerized versions of the General Aptitude Test Battery , 1994 .

[9]  Structural equation analyses of clinical subpopulation differences and comparative treatment outcomes: characterizing the daily lives of drug addicts. , 1994, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[10]  M A Pentz,et al.  Measurement invariance in longitudinal clinical research assuming change from development and intervention. , 1994, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[11]  Herbert W. Marsh,et al.  The Multidimensional Structure of Academic Self-Concept: Invariance Over Gender and Age , 1993 .

[12]  W. Meredith.  Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance , 1993 .

[13]  Keith F Widaman,et al.  Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. , 1993, Psychological bulletin.

[14]  Paul R. Jackson,et al.  New measures of job control, cognitive demand, and production responsibility. , 1993 .

[15]  B. Byrne.  The Maslach Burnout Inventory: Testing for factorial validity and invariance across elementary, intermediate and secondary teachers , 1993 .

[16]  D. Bandalos,et al.  Factors Influencing Cross-Validation of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models. , 1993, Multivariate behavioral research.

[17]  Karl G. Jöreskog,et al.  Lisrel 8: Structural Equation Modeling With the Simplis Command Language , 1993 .

[18]  J. Tisak,et al.  Psychometric equivalence of a translated circadian rhythm questionnaire: implications for between- and within-population assessments. , 1991, The Journal of applied psychology.

[19]  R E Millsap,et al.  Confirmatory Measurement Model Comparisons Using Latent Means. , 1991, Multivariate behavioral research.

[20]  Robert C. MacCallum,et al.  Representing sources of error in the common-factor model: Implications for theory and practice. , 1991 .

[21]  Y. Poortinga.  Equivalence of cross-cultural data: an overview of basic issues. , 1989, International journal of psychology : Journal international de psychologie.

[22]  B. Byrne,et al.  Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. , 1989 .

[23]  Bengt Muthén,et al.  Testing for the Equivalence of Factor Covariance and Mean Structures : The Issue of Partial Measurement In variance , 1989 .

[24]  Barbara B. Ellis,et al.  Differential item functioning: implications for test translations , 1989 .

[25]  S. Iwawaki,et al.  Cross-Cultural Comparability of Temperament Among Japanese and American Preschool Children , 1988 .

[26]  L. Hayduk.  Structural equation modeling with LISREL , 1987 .

[27]  W. Bielby.  Arbitrary Metrics in Multiple-Indicator Models of Latent Variables , 1986 .

[28]  Elizabeth Thomson,et al.  Normalization Issues in Latent Variable Modeling , 1986 .

[29]  R. Kanfer,et al.  Equivalence of psychological measurement in heterogeneous populations. , 1985, The Journal of applied psychology.

[30]  H. Marsh,et al.  Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First- and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. , 1985 .

[31]  F. Drasgow.  Scrutinizing psychological tests: Measurement equivalence and equivalent relations with external variables are the central issues , 1984 .

[32]  William Meredith,et al.  Notes on factorial invariance , 1964 .

[33]  William Meredith,et al.  Rotation to achieve factorial invariance , 1964 .