Using restricted factor analysis with latent moderated structures to detect uniform and nonuniform measurement bias; a simulation study Barendse, M.T.; Oort, F.J.; Garst, G.J.A.
Published in:AStA-Advances in Statistical Analysis
DOI:10.1007/s10182-010-0126-1 A. (2010). Using restricted factor analysis with latent moderated structures to detect uniform and nonuniform measurement bias; a simulation study. AStA-Advances in Statistical Analysis, 94(2), 117-127. DOI: 10.1007/s10182-010-0126-1
Link to publication
Citation for published version (APA):
General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.
Download date: 11 May 2018AStA Abstract Factor analysis is an established technique for the detection of measurement bias. Multigroup factor analysis (MGFA) can detect both uniform and nonuniform bias. Restricted factor analysis (RFA) can also be used to detect measurement bias, albeit only uniform measurement bias. Latent moderated structural equations (LMS) enable the estimation of nonlinear interaction effects in structural equation modelling. By extending the RFA method with LMS, the RFA method should be suited to detect nonuniform bias as well as uniform bias. In a simulation study, the RFA/LMS method and the MGFA method are compared in detecting uniform and nonuniform measurement bias under various conditions, varying the size of uniform bias, the size of nonuniform bias, the sample size, and the ability distribution. For each condition, 100 sets of data were generated and analysed through both detection methods. The RFA/LMS and MGFA methods turned out to perform equally well. Percentages of correctly identified items as biased (true positives) generally varied between 92% and 100%, except in small sample size conditions in which the bias was nonuniform and small. For both methods, the percentages of false positives were generally higher than the nominal levels of significance.Adv Stat Anal (2010) 94: 117-127 DOI 10.1007/s10182-010-0126-