A Bayesian region of measurement equivalence (ROME) approach for establishing measurement invariance.

IF 7.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychological methods Pub Date : 2023-08-01 DOI:10.1037/met0000455
Yichi Zhang, Mark H C Lai, Gregory J Palardy
{"title":"A Bayesian region of measurement equivalence (ROME) approach for establishing measurement invariance.","authors":"Yichi Zhang,&nbsp;Mark H C Lai,&nbsp;Gregory J Palardy","doi":"10.1037/met0000455","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Measurement invariance research has focused on identifying biases in test indicators measuring a latent trait across two or more groups. However, relatively little attention has been devoted to the practical implications of noninvariance. An important question is whether noninvariance in indicators or items results in differences in observed composite scores across groups. The current study introduces the Bayesian <i>region of measurement equivalence</i> (ROME) as a framework for visualizing and testing the combined impact of partial invariance on the group difference in observed scores. Under the proposed framework, researchers first compute the <i>highest posterior density intervals</i> (HPDIs)-which contain the most plausible values-for the expected group difference in observed test scores over a range of latent trait levels. By comparing the HPDIs with a predetermined range of values that is practically equivalent to zero (i.e., region of measurement equivalence), researchers can determine whether a test instrument is practically invariant. The proposed ROME method can be used for both continuous indicators and ordinal items. We illustrated ROME using five items measuring mathematics-specific self-efficacy from a nationally representative sample of 10th graders. Whereas conventional invariance testing identifies a partial strict invariance model across gender, the statistically significant noninvariant items were found to have a negligible impact on the comparison of the observed scores. This empirical example demonstrates the utility of the ROME method for assessing practical significance when statistically significant item noninvariance is found. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20782,"journal":{"name":"Psychological methods","volume":"28 4","pages":"993-1004"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000455","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Measurement invariance research has focused on identifying biases in test indicators measuring a latent trait across two or more groups. However, relatively little attention has been devoted to the practical implications of noninvariance. An important question is whether noninvariance in indicators or items results in differences in observed composite scores across groups. The current study introduces the Bayesian region of measurement equivalence (ROME) as a framework for visualizing and testing the combined impact of partial invariance on the group difference in observed scores. Under the proposed framework, researchers first compute the highest posterior density intervals (HPDIs)-which contain the most plausible values-for the expected group difference in observed test scores over a range of latent trait levels. By comparing the HPDIs with a predetermined range of values that is practically equivalent to zero (i.e., region of measurement equivalence), researchers can determine whether a test instrument is practically invariant. The proposed ROME method can be used for both continuous indicators and ordinal items. We illustrated ROME using five items measuring mathematics-specific self-efficacy from a nationally representative sample of 10th graders. Whereas conventional invariance testing identifies a partial strict invariance model across gender, the statistically significant noninvariant items were found to have a negligible impact on the comparison of the observed scores. This empirical example demonstrates the utility of the ROME method for assessing practical significance when statistically significant item noninvariance is found. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一种建立测量不变性的贝叶斯测量等价域方法。
测量不变性研究的重点是在两个或多个群体中测量潜在特征的测试指标中识别偏差。然而,对非不变性的实际含义的关注相对较少。一个重要的问题是,指标或项目的不变性是否会导致观察到的组间综合得分的差异。本研究引入贝叶斯测量等效区域(ROME)作为一个框架,用于可视化和测试部分不变性对观察得分组差异的综合影响。在提出的框架下,研究人员首先计算最高后验密度间隔(HPDIs),它包含了最合理的值,用于观察到的测试分数在潜在特征水平范围内的预期组差异。通过将HPDIs与实际等于零的预定值范围(即测量等效区域)进行比较,研究人员可以确定测试仪器是否实际不变。所提出的ROME方法既可用于连续指标,也可用于序数项目。我们从一个具有全国代表性的十年级学生样本中使用五个项目来测量数学特定的自我效能来说明ROME。尽管传统的不变性检验确定了跨性别的部分严格不变性模型,但统计上显著的非不变项被发现对观察得分的比较具有可忽略不计的影响。这个经验例子表明,当发现统计显著项目不变性时,ROME方法用于评估实际意义的效用。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological methods
Psychological methods PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
159
期刊介绍: Psychological Methods is devoted to the development and dissemination of methods for collecting, analyzing, understanding, and interpreting psychological data. Its purpose is the dissemination of innovations in research design, measurement, methodology, and quantitative and qualitative analysis to the psychological community; its further purpose is to promote effective communication about related substantive and methodological issues. The audience is expected to be diverse and to include those who develop new procedures, those who are responsible for undergraduate and graduate training in design, measurement, and statistics, as well as those who employ those procedures in research.
期刊最新文献
Simulation studies for methodological research in psychology: A standardized template for planning, preregistration, and reporting. How to conduct an integrative mixed methods meta-analysis: A tutorial for the systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Updated guidelines on selecting an intraclass correlation coefficient for interrater reliability, with applications to incomplete observational designs. Data-driven covariate selection for confounding adjustment by focusing on the stability of the effect estimator. Estimating and investigating multiple constructs multiple indicators social relations models with and without roles within the traditional structural equation modeling framework: A tutorial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1