Thompson Yutian T, Song Hairong, Shi Dexin, Liu Zhengkui
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA.
Educ Psychol Meas. 2021 Feb;81(1):5-38. doi: 10.1177/0013164420926565. Epub 2020 Jun 5.
Conventional approaches for selecting a reference indicator (RI) could lead to misleading results in testing for measurement invariance (MI). Several newer quantitative methods have been available for more rigorous RI selection. However, it is still unknown how well these methods perform in terms of correctly identifying a truly invariant item to be an RI. Thus, Study 1 was designed to address this issue in various conditions using simulated data. As a follow-up, Study 2 further investigated the advantages/disadvantages of using RI-based approaches for MI testing in comparison with non-RI-based approaches. Altogether, the two studies provided a solid examination on how RI matters in MI tests. In addition, a large sample of real-world data was used to empirically compare the uses of the RI selection methods as well as the RI-based and non-RI-based approaches for MI testing. In the end, we offered a discussion on all these methods, followed by suggestions and recommendations for applied researchers.
选择参考指标(RI)的传统方法在测量不变性(MI)检验中可能会导致误导性结果。有几种更新的定量方法可用于更严格地选择RI。然而,这些方法在正确识别真正不变的项目作为RI方面的表现如何仍不清楚。因此,研究1旨在使用模拟数据在各种条件下解决这个问题。作为后续,研究2进一步研究了与非基于RI的方法相比,使用基于RI的方法进行MI检验的优缺点。总之,这两项研究对RI在MI检验中的重要性进行了扎实的考察。此外,还使用了大量现实世界的数据来实证比较RI选择方法以及基于RI和非基于RI的MI检验方法的使用情况。最后,我们对所有这些方法进行了讨论,并为应用研究人员提供了建议。