This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Vandenberg, R. J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Toward a Further Understanding of and Improvement in Measurement Invariance Methods and Procedures

University of Georgia, rvandenb{at}terry.uga.edu

Recognizing that measurement invariance was rarely tested for in organizational research, and that it should be, Vandenberg and Lance elaborated on the importance of conducting tests of measurement invariance and proposed an integrative paradigm for conducting sequences of measurement invariance tests. Building on their platform, the current article addresses some of the shortcomings in our understanding of the analytical procedures. In particular, it points out the need to address (a) the sensitivity of the analytical procedures, (b) the susceptibility of the procedures to contextual influences, (c) how partial invariance affects the tests of substantive interest, and (d) the triggers or causes for not supporting invariance. In the hopes of stimulating further research on these topics, ideas are presented as to how this research may be undertaken.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. S. Behrend, L. Foster Thompson, A. W. Meade, D. A. Newton, and M. S. Grayson Measurement Invariance in Careers Research: Using IRT to Study Gender Differences in Medical Students' Specialization Decisions Journal of Career Development, September 1, 2008; 35(1): 60 - 83. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. Davidov, P. Schmidt, and S. H. Schwartz Bringing Values Back In: The Adequacy of the European Social Survey to Measure Values in 20 Countries Public Opin Q, September 1, 2008; 72(3): 420 - 445. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. W. Cheung Testing Equivalence in the Structure, Means, and Variances of Higher-Order Constructs With Structural Equation Modeling Organizational Research Methods, July 1, 2008; 11(3): 593 - 613. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. C. Bowden, L. G. Weiss, J. A. Holdnack, F. J. Bardenhagen, and M. J. Cook Equivalence of a Measurement Model of Cognitive Abilities in U.S. Standardization and Australian Neuroscience Samples Assessment, June 1, 2008; 15(2): 132 - 144. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. W. Meade, G. J. Lautenschlager, and E. C. Johnson A Monte Carlo Examination of the Sensitivity of the Differential Functioning of Items and Tests Framework for Tests of Measurement Invariance With Likert Data Applied Psychological Measurement, September 1, 2007; 31(5): 430 - 455. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. S. Cole, A. G. Bedeian, and H. S. Feild The Measurement Equivalence of Web-Based and Paper-and-Pencil Measures of Transformational Leadership: A Multinational Test Organizational Research Methods, July 1, 2006; 9(3): 339 - 368. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. W. Meade and C. M. Kroustalis Problems With Item Parceling for Confirmatory Factor Analytic Tests of Measurement Invariance Organizational Research Methods, July 1, 2006; 9(3): 369 - 403. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. Deutskens, K. de Ruyter, and M. Wetzels An Assessment of Equivalence Between Online and Mail Surveys in Service Research Journal of Service Research, May 1, 2006; 8(4): 346 - 355. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. W. Meade and G. J. Lautenschlager A Comparison of Item Response Theory and Confirmatory Factor Analytic Methodologies for Establishing Measurement Equivalence/Invariance Organizational Research Methods, October 1, 2004; 7(4): 361 - 388. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. J. Williams, J. R. Edwards, and R. J. Vandenberg Recent Advances in Causal Modeling Methods for Organizational and Management Research Journal of Management, December 1, 2003; 29(6): 903 - 936. [Abstract] [PDF]