Evaluating Measurement Invariance in Categorical Data Latent Variable Models with the EPC-Interest

Many variables crucial to the social sciences are not directly observed but instead are latent and measured indirectly. When an external variable of interest affects this measurement, estimates of its relationship with the latent variable will then be biased. Such violations of “measurement invariance†may, for example, confound true differences across countries in postmaterialism with measurement differences. To deal with this problem, researchers commonly aim at “partial measurement invariance†that is, to account for those differences that may be present and important. To evaluate this importance directly through sensitivity analysis, the “EPC-interest†was recently introduced for continuous data. However, latent variable models in the social sciences often use categorical data. The current paper therefore extends the EPC-interest to latent variable models for categorical data and demonstrates its use in example analyses of U.S. Senate votes as well as respondent rankings of postmaterialism values in the World Values Study.

[1]  Sophia Rabe-Hesketh,et al.  Generalized latent variable models: multilevel, longitudinal, and structural equation models , 2004 .

[2]  W. Holmes Finch,et al.  Confirmatory Factor Analytic Procedures for the Determination of Measurement Invariance , 2006 .

[3]  C. Chou,et al.  Some New Covariance Structure Model Improvement Statistics , 1992 .

[4]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[5]  Jan R. Magnus,et al.  Local Sensitivity and Diagnostic Tests , 2004 .

[6]  Suzanne Jak,et al.  A Test for Cluster Bias: Detecting Violations of Measurement Invariance Across Clusters in Multilevel Data , 2013 .

[7]  D. McFadden Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[8]  Regina Dittrich,et al.  Analysing partial ranks by using smoothed paired comparison methods: an investigation of value orientation in Europe , 2002 .

[9]  Jeroen K. Vermunt,et al.  6. The Simultaneous Decision(s) about the Number of Lower- and Higher-Level Classes in Multilevel Latent Class Analysis , 2010 .

[10]  Daniel L. Oberski,et al.  Comparability of Survey Measurements , 2012 .

[11]  Gideon J. Mellenbergh,et al.  Item bias and item response theory , 1989 .

[12]  J. Steenkamp,et al.  Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross-National Consumer Research , 1998 .

[13]  Bengt Muthén,et al.  IRT studies of many groups: the alignment method , 2014, Front. Psychol..

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

[15]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[16]  R. Vandenberg,et al.  A Review and Synthesis of the Measurement Invariance Literature: Suggestions, Practices, and Recommendations for Organizational Research , 2000 .

[17]  Gordon W. Cheung,et al.  Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance , 2002 .

[18]  Daniel L. Oberski,et al.  Evaluating Sensitivity of Parameters of Interest to Measurement Invariance in Latent Variable Models , 2014, Political Analysis.

[19]  S. Rabe-Hesketh,et al.  Generalized multilevel structural equation modeling , 2004 .

[20]  L. Thurstone A law of comparative judgment. , 1994 .

[21]  James Lo,et al.  Scaling Roll Call Votes with wnominate in R , 2008 .

[22]  J. Fox,et al.  Bayesian tests of measurement invariance. , 2012, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.

[23]  F. Chen Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance , 2007 .

[24]  J. Magnus,et al.  Matrix Differential Calculus with Applications in Statistics and Econometrics (Revised Edition) , 1999 .

[25]  Willem E. Saris,et al.  Testing Structural Equation Models or Detection of Misspecifications? , 2009 .

[26]  R. Inglehart Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies , 1997 .

[27]  Jeroen K. Vermunt,et al.  Heterogeneity in Post-materialist Value Priorities. Evidence from a Latent Class Discrete Choice Approach , 2007 .

[28]  J. Heckman,et al.  A Method for Minimizing the Impact of Distributional Assumptions in Econometric Models for Duration Data , 1984 .

[29]  A. Satorra Alternative test criteria in covariance structure analysis: A unified approach , 1989 .

[30]  Lars Tummers,et al.  Facing off with Scylla and Charybdis: a comparison of scalar, partial, and the novel possibility of approximate measurement invariance , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[31]  Ronald Inglehart,et al.  Changing Mass Priorities: The Link between Modernization and Democracy , 2010, Perspectives on Politics.

[32]  K. Bollen Latent variables in psychology and the social sciences. , 2002, Annual review of psychology.

[33]  Melissa S. Yale,et al.  Differential Item Functioning , 2014 .

[34]  U. Böckenholt Comparison and Choice: Analyzing Discrete Preference Data by Latent Class Scaling Models , 2001 .

[35]  Jeroen K. Vermunt,et al.  Factor Analysis with Categorical Indicators: A Comparison Between Traditional and Latent Class Approaches , 2005 .

[36]  H. Wainer,et al.  Differential Item Functioning. , 1994 .

[37]  R. Inglehart Post-Materialism in an Environment of Insecurity , 1981, American Political Science Review.

[38]  Willem E. Saris,et al.  The Detection and Correction of Specification Errors in Structural Equation Models , 1987 .

[39]  P. Norris,et al.  Gender Equality and Democracy , 2003, Human Values and Social Change.

[40]  D. Sörbom Model modification , 1989 .

[41]  K. T. Poole,et al.  A Spatial Model for Legislative Roll Call Analysis , 1985 .

[42]  R. Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. , 1960 .

[43]  P. Bentler,et al.  Fit indices in covariance structure modeling : Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification , 1998 .

[44]  Marcel A. Croon,et al.  Latent Class Models for the Analysis of Rankings , 1989 .

[45]  N. Schmitt,et al.  Measurement invariance: Review of practice and implications , 2008 .

[46]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis , 1979 .

[47]  Ronald Inglehart,et al.  The Silent Revolution , 1977 .

[48]  Jean-Paul Fox,et al.  Relaxing Measurement Invariance in Cross-National Consumer Research Using a Hierarchical IRT Model , 2007 .

[49]  Michel Wedel,et al.  Concomitant Variable Latent Class Models for Conjoint Analysis , 1994 .

[50]  J. Magnus,et al.  Matrix Differential Calculus with Applications in Statistics and Econometrics , 1991 .

[51]  Bengt Muthén,et al.  Bayesian structural equation modeling: a more flexible representation of substantive theory. , 2012, Psychological methods.

[52]  J. Vermunt,et al.  Testing for Measurement Invariance With Latent Class Analysis , 2010 .

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

[54]  Allan L. McCutcheon,et al.  A Latent Class Analysis of Tolerance for Nonconformity in the American Public , 1985 .