2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsp.2016.11.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measurement equivalence: A non-technical primer on categorical multi-group confirmatory factor analysis in school psychology

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
141
1
24

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 169 publications
(168 citation statements)
references
References 89 publications
2
141
1
24
Order By: Relevance
“…La relevancia de las cargas secundarias se evaluó con el índice de simplicidad factorial (ISF; Fleming & Merino, 2005), donde valores > .70 representan una simplicidad aceptable, es decir que el ítem recibe influencia significativa predominantemente de un factor. La equivalencia del modelo unidimensional entre las muestras de calibración y de replicación fue comprobada mediante un análisis de invarianza de medición (Pendergast, Embse, Kilgus, & Eklund, 2017): invarianza configural, métrica y fuerte. Es necesario mencionar que no se evaluó la igualdad entre residuales (invarianza estricta) porque no es el objetivo del presente estudio (Byrne, 2008).…”
Section: Análisis De Datosunclassified
“…La relevancia de las cargas secundarias se evaluó con el índice de simplicidad factorial (ISF; Fleming & Merino, 2005), donde valores > .70 representan una simplicidad aceptable, es decir que el ítem recibe influencia significativa predominantemente de un factor. La equivalencia del modelo unidimensional entre las muestras de calibración y de replicación fue comprobada mediante un análisis de invarianza de medición (Pendergast, Embse, Kilgus, & Eklund, 2017): invarianza configural, métrica y fuerte. Es necesario mencionar que no se evaluó la igualdad entre residuales (invarianza estricta) porque no es el objetivo del presente estudio (Byrne, 2008).…”
Section: Análisis De Datosunclassified
“…Then, four levels of equivalence, including configural, weak/metric factorial, strong/scalar factorial, and strict/uniqueness factorial invariance, were tested individually (Meredith, 1993). |DCFI| < 0.010 and |DRMSEA| < 0.015 were adopted as evaluation criteria (Pendergast, von der Embse, Kilgus & Eklund, 2017).…”
Section: Ibmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The HOME has been used in medical and epidemiological studies worldwide (e.g., Bradley, Mundfrom, Whiteside, Casey, & Barrett (1994) ; Bradley, Whiteside et al (1994) ; Bradley et al, 1996 , Walkowiak et al, 2001 , Williams et al, 2003 , Black et al, 2004 ), but studies of the psychometric properties of the HOME across cultures are limited. Measures do not always operate similarly across cultures, and it is necessary to examine whether the constructs and items function in a similar fashion across sites (e.g., measurement equivalence/invariance; Pendergast, von der Embse, Kilgus, & Eklund, 2017 ). To that end, the version of the HOME adapted by Black et al (2004) was administered and the psychometric properties examined as part a larger multinational study examining several factors related to child development across each of eight sites: Dhaka, Bangladesh; Vellore, India; Bhakatapur, Nepal; Naushahro Feroze, Pakistan; Fortaleza, Brazil; Loreto, Peru; Venda, South Africa; Haydom, Tanzania.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Measurement equivalence/invariance refers to the extent to which an assessment tool measures the intended construct in a similar way across groups ( Drasgow, 1984 , Pendergast et al, 2017 ). Moreover, Pendergast and colleagues identified a number of instances when ME/I is important to understanding how tests and measures are used across different populations, such as evaluating test bias or differences in item functioning across cultural groups.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%