Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance (original) (raw)
References
Birnbaum, M. H. (1985). Relationships among models of salary bias.American Psychologist, 40, 862–6. Google Scholar
Bloxom, B. (1972). Alternative approaches to factorial invariance.Psychometrika, 37, 425–40. Google Scholar
Chang, H. & Mazzeo, J. (1993, June). The identifiability of expected score in conceptualizations of differential item functioning for polytomously scored items. Paper presented at Psychometric Society Annual Meeting.
French, J. W., Ekstrom, R. B., & Price, L. A. (1963).Kit of reference tests for cognitive factors. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Google Scholar
Gregory, K. (1991).A reconsideration of bias in employment testing from the perspective of factorial invariance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. Google Scholar
Guttman, L. (1955). The determinacy of factor score matrices with implications for five basic problems in common factor theory.British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 8, 65–81. Google Scholar
Horn, J. L. (1985). Remodeling old models of intelligence. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.),Handbook of intelligence. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
Horn, J. L. (1986). Intellectual ability concepts. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 3). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Horn, J. L., McArdle, J. J., Mason, R. (1983). When is invariance not invariant: A practical scientist's look at the ethereal concept of factor invariance.The Southern Psychologist, 1, 179–88. Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests.Psychometrika, 36, 109–133. Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G. & Sörbom, D. (1988).LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications (2nd ed.). Chicago: SPSS. Google Scholar
Junker, B. W. (1991). Essential independence and likelihood based ability estimation for polytomous items.Psychometrika, 56, 255–78. Google Scholar
Kearns, R. J. (1971).Latent class models for response emission tests. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. Google Scholar
Lord, F. M. (1952). A theory of test scores. New York: Psychometric Society;Psychometric Monograph, No. 7. Google Scholar
Lord, F. M. (1980).Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Lord, F. M. & Novick, M. R. (1968).Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar
Mazzeo, J. & Chang, H. (1993, June).Detection of differential item functioning for polytomously scored items. An adaptation of Shealy and Stout's SIBTEST procedure. Paper presented at Psychometric Society Annual Meeting.
McArdle, J. J. & Cattell, R. B. (in press). Structural equation models of factorial invariance in parallel proportion profiles and oblique confactor problems.Multivariate Behavioral Research.
McCallum, R. C. & Tucker, L. R. (1991). Representing sources of error in the common factor model: Implications for theory and practice.Psychological Bulletin, 109, 502–11. Google Scholar
Mellenbergh, G. J. (1989). Item bias and item response theory.International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 127–43. Google Scholar
Meredith, W. (1964). Notes on factorial invariance.Psychometrika, 29, 177–85. Google Scholar
Meredith, W. (1971). Poisson distributions of error in Mental Test Theory.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 24, 49–82. Google Scholar
Meredith, W. & Millsap, R. E. (1992). On the misuse of manifest variables in the detection of measurement bias.Psychometrika, 57, 289–311. Google Scholar
Millsap, R. E. & Meredith, W. (in press). Statistical evidence in salary discrimination studies: Nonparametric inferential conditions.Applied Psychological Measurement.
Muthén, B. O. (1989). Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations.Psychometrika, 54, 557–88. Google Scholar
Muthén, B. & Lehman, J. (1985). Multiple group IRT modeling: Applications to item bias analysis.Journal of Educational Statistics, 10, 133–42. Google Scholar
Sands, L., Terry, H., & Meredith, W. (1989). Change and stability in adult intellectual functioning assessed by Wechsler item responses.Psychology and Aging, 2, 79–87. Google Scholar
Shealy, R. & Stout, W. (1993a). An item response theory model for test bias and differential test functioning. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer.Differential item functioning: Theory and practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Shealy, R. & Stout, W. (1993b). A model based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF as well as item bias/DIF.Psychometrika, 159–194.
Silny, F. & Meredith, W. (1973). Test of a model for response emission tests.Proceedings, 81st Annual Convention, American Psychological Association.
Stout, W. (1990). A new item response theory modeling approach with applications to unidimensionality assessment and ability estimation.Psychometrika, 55, 293–325. Google Scholar
Sörbom, D. (1974). A general method for studying differences in factor means and factor structures between groups.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 28, 229–39. Google Scholar
Tryon, R. C. (1958). General dimensions of individual differences: Cluster analysis vs. factor analysis.Educational & Psychological Measurement, 18, 447–95. Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1981).Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. Google Scholar