惩罚似然估计与极大似然估计测量不变性检验的比较:蒙特卡罗模拟研究

W. H. Finch
{"title":"惩罚似然估计与极大似然估计测量不变性检验的比较:蒙特卡罗模拟研究","authors":"W. H. Finch","doi":"10.31523/glmj.044002.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Comparison of Measurement Invariance Testing using Penalized Likelihood and Maximum Likelihood Estimators: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study W. Holmes Finch Ball State University Invariance testing remains a widely used and important issue for social scientists. At its heart, assessment of factor invariance involves an examination of the suitability of a scale’s use across an entire population. Traditionally, invariance testing has been carried out using a Chi-square difference test in conjunction with multiple group confirmatory factor analysis. However, research has demonstrated that this approach can result in inflated Type I error rates, or findings of a lack of invariance when in fact invariance is present. As a result, statisticians and methodologists have been investigating alternative approaches to testing invariance, which control the Type I error rate without sacrificing much in terms of power. The current study investigated one such alternative, based on a penalized likelihood estimator. This estimator has been previously investigated in the context of fitting structural equation models, and found to perform well in terms of parameter estimation accuracy. Results of the current Monte Carlo simulation study found that the PLE approach is in fact promising in the context of invariance assessment. It was able to control the Type I error rate better than did the Chi-square test, and it exhibited power rates that were as good as or better than those of the Chi-square. Implications of these findings are discussed. he invariance of latent variable models is an important issue in a wide variety of fields within the social sciences. Invariance refers to the case where latent variable model parameters, such as factor loadings, factor intercepts, or error variances, are equivalent across subgroups within the population. It is key for users of educational and psychological scales, as its presence allows for the use of such instruments with the entire population of interest. On the other hand, when invariance cannot be demonstrated, users of the scale cannot be certain that scores produced by it have the same meaning across subgroups, such as different ethnic groups, genders, or individuals with different socioeconomic status (Dorans, & Cook, 2016; Millsap, 2011; Wu, Li, & Zumbo, 2007). Thus, researchers who do plan to use scales with broad populations of individuals need to demonstrate scale invariance. The investigation of latent trait model parameter invariance typically involves the use of multiple groups confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA). In this paradigm, the fit of models with, and without group equality constraints on the model parameters are compared, and if the fit of the models differs, we conclude that invariance does not hold (Millsap, 2011). Perhaps the most common statistical approach used in such invariance assessment involves the calculation of the Chi-square difference statistic, which is discussed in more detail below. However, research has demonstrated that in some situations, this approach has an inflated Type I error rate, resulting in a rejection of the null hypothesis of invariance when in fact invariance holds within the population (Yuan & Bentler, 2004). The purpose of the current study is to examine the performance of an invariance assessment approach based upon the use of a penalized likelihood estimator (PLE) for latent variable models (Huang, 2018), and which might prove to be a worthy alternative to the chi-square difference based approach. The paper is organized as follows. First, a brief review of the MGCFA approach to testing factor invariance (FI) is presented. Next, PLE is discussed, followed by a description of how it can be used to assess FI. The goals of the study, including research questions and hypotheses are then presented, as is the methodology used to address them. Finally, the results of the simulation study and a discussion of those results are presented.","PeriodicalId":259786,"journal":{"name":"General Linear Model Journal","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Measurement Invariance Testing using Penalized Likelihood and Maximum Likelihood Estimators: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study\",\"authors\":\"W. H. Finch\",\"doi\":\"10.31523/glmj.044002.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Comparison of Measurement Invariance Testing using Penalized Likelihood and Maximum Likelihood Estimators: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study W. Holmes Finch Ball State University Invariance testing remains a widely used and important issue for social scientists. At its heart, assessment of factor invariance involves an examination of the suitability of a scale’s use across an entire population. Traditionally, invariance testing has been carried out using a Chi-square difference test in conjunction with multiple group confirmatory factor analysis. However, research has demonstrated that this approach can result in inflated Type I error rates, or findings of a lack of invariance when in fact invariance is present. As a result, statisticians and methodologists have been investigating alternative approaches to testing invariance, which control the Type I error rate without sacrificing much in terms of power. The current study investigated one such alternative, based on a penalized likelihood estimator. This estimator has been previously investigated in the context of fitting structural equation models, and found to perform well in terms of parameter estimation accuracy. Results of the current Monte Carlo simulation study found that the PLE approach is in fact promising in the context of invariance assessment. It was able to control the Type I error rate better than did the Chi-square test, and it exhibited power rates that were as good as or better than those of the Chi-square. Implications of these findings are discussed. he invariance of latent variable models is an important issue in a wide variety of fields within the social sciences. Invariance refers to the case where latent variable model parameters, such as factor loadings, factor intercepts, or error variances, are equivalent across subgroups within the population. It is key for users of educational and psychological scales, as its presence allows for the use of such instruments with the entire population of interest. On the other hand, when invariance cannot be demonstrated, users of the scale cannot be certain that scores produced by it have the same meaning across subgroups, such as different ethnic groups, genders, or individuals with different socioeconomic status (Dorans, & Cook, 2016; Millsap, 2011; Wu, Li, & Zumbo, 2007). Thus, researchers who do plan to use scales with broad populations of individuals need to demonstrate scale invariance. The investigation of latent trait model parameter invariance typically involves the use of multiple groups confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA). In this paradigm, the fit of models with, and without group equality constraints on the model parameters are compared, and if the fit of the models differs, we conclude that invariance does not hold (Millsap, 2011). Perhaps the most common statistical approach used in such invariance assessment involves the calculation of the Chi-square difference statistic, which is discussed in more detail below. However, research has demonstrated that in some situations, this approach has an inflated Type I error rate, resulting in a rejection of the null hypothesis of invariance when in fact invariance holds within the population (Yuan & Bentler, 2004). The purpose of the current study is to examine the performance of an invariance assessment approach based upon the use of a penalized likelihood estimator (PLE) for latent variable models (Huang, 2018), and which might prove to be a worthy alternative to the chi-square difference based approach. The paper is organized as follows. First, a brief review of the MGCFA approach to testing factor invariance (FI) is presented. Next, PLE is discussed, followed by a description of how it can be used to assess FI. The goals of the study, including research questions and hypotheses are then presented, as is the methodology used to address them. Finally, the results of the simulation study and a discussion of those results are presented.\",\"PeriodicalId\":259786,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"General Linear Model Journal\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"General Linear Model Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31523/glmj.044002.003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"General Linear Model Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31523/glmj.044002.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

惩罚似然估计与极大似然估计测量不变性检验的比较:蒙特卡洛模拟研究不变性检验仍然是社会科学家广泛使用的重要问题。在其核心,因素不变性的评估涉及到一个尺度的适用性检查在整个人口的使用。传统上,使用卡方差异检验结合多组验证性因子分析进行不变性检验。然而,研究表明,这种方法可能导致I型错误率过高,或者在实际上存在不变性的情况下发现缺乏不变性。因此,统计学家和方法学家一直在研究测试不变性的替代方法,这些方法可以在不牺牲太多功率的情况下控制第一类错误率。目前的研究调查了一种这样的选择,基于惩罚似然估计。该估计器已经在结构方程模型拟合的背景下进行了研究,并发现在参数估计精度方面表现良好。目前蒙特卡罗模拟研究的结果发现,在不变性评估的背景下,PLE方法实际上是有前途的。它能够比卡方检验更好地控制I型错误率,并且它显示的功率率与卡方检验一样好或更好。讨论了这些发现的意义。潜变量模型的不变性在社会科学的各个领域都是一个重要的问题。不变性是指潜在变量模型参数(如因子负载、因子截距或误差方差)在总体内的子组中是相等的情况。它对于教育和心理量表的用户来说是关键,因为它的存在允许对所有感兴趣的人群使用这些工具。另一方面,当不能证明不变性时,量表的使用者不能确定它产生的分数在不同的子群体中具有相同的意义,例如不同的种族群体、性别或具有不同社会经济地位的个体(Dorans, & Cook, 2016;米尔萨普,2011;Wu, Li, & Zumbo, 2007)。因此,研究人员如果计划在广泛的个体群体中使用尺度,就需要证明尺度不变性。潜在性状模型参数不变性的研究通常涉及使用多组验证性因子分析(MGCFA)。在这种范式中,比较了模型参数上有和没有群体平等约束的模型的拟合,如果模型的拟合不同,我们得出结论,不变性不成立(Millsap, 2011)。也许在这种不变性评估中使用的最常见的统计方法涉及卡方差异统计量的计算,下面将详细讨论这一点。然而,研究表明,在某些情况下,这种方法具有膨胀的I型错误率,导致拒绝不变性的零假设,而实际上不变性在总体内成立(Yuan & Bentler, 2004)。当前研究的目的是检查基于对潜在变量模型使用惩罚似然估计器(PLE)的不变性评估方法的性能(Huang, 2018),并且可能被证明是基于卡方差分方法的有价值的替代方法。本文组织如下。首先,简要回顾了MGCFA测试因子不变性(FI)的方法。接下来,讨论PLE,然后描述如何使用它来评估FI。研究的目标,包括研究问题和假设,然后提出,以及用于解决这些问题的方法。最后,给出了仿真研究的结果,并对结果进行了讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of Measurement Invariance Testing using Penalized Likelihood and Maximum Likelihood Estimators: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study
Comparison of Measurement Invariance Testing using Penalized Likelihood and Maximum Likelihood Estimators: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study W. Holmes Finch Ball State University Invariance testing remains a widely used and important issue for social scientists. At its heart, assessment of factor invariance involves an examination of the suitability of a scale’s use across an entire population. Traditionally, invariance testing has been carried out using a Chi-square difference test in conjunction with multiple group confirmatory factor analysis. However, research has demonstrated that this approach can result in inflated Type I error rates, or findings of a lack of invariance when in fact invariance is present. As a result, statisticians and methodologists have been investigating alternative approaches to testing invariance, which control the Type I error rate without sacrificing much in terms of power. The current study investigated one such alternative, based on a penalized likelihood estimator. This estimator has been previously investigated in the context of fitting structural equation models, and found to perform well in terms of parameter estimation accuracy. Results of the current Monte Carlo simulation study found that the PLE approach is in fact promising in the context of invariance assessment. It was able to control the Type I error rate better than did the Chi-square test, and it exhibited power rates that were as good as or better than those of the Chi-square. Implications of these findings are discussed. he invariance of latent variable models is an important issue in a wide variety of fields within the social sciences. Invariance refers to the case where latent variable model parameters, such as factor loadings, factor intercepts, or error variances, are equivalent across subgroups within the population. It is key for users of educational and psychological scales, as its presence allows for the use of such instruments with the entire population of interest. On the other hand, when invariance cannot be demonstrated, users of the scale cannot be certain that scores produced by it have the same meaning across subgroups, such as different ethnic groups, genders, or individuals with different socioeconomic status (Dorans, & Cook, 2016; Millsap, 2011; Wu, Li, & Zumbo, 2007). Thus, researchers who do plan to use scales with broad populations of individuals need to demonstrate scale invariance. The investigation of latent trait model parameter invariance typically involves the use of multiple groups confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA). In this paradigm, the fit of models with, and without group equality constraints on the model parameters are compared, and if the fit of the models differs, we conclude that invariance does not hold (Millsap, 2011). Perhaps the most common statistical approach used in such invariance assessment involves the calculation of the Chi-square difference statistic, which is discussed in more detail below. However, research has demonstrated that in some situations, this approach has an inflated Type I error rate, resulting in a rejection of the null hypothesis of invariance when in fact invariance holds within the population (Yuan & Bentler, 2004). The purpose of the current study is to examine the performance of an invariance assessment approach based upon the use of a penalized likelihood estimator (PLE) for latent variable models (Huang, 2018), and which might prove to be a worthy alternative to the chi-square difference based approach. The paper is organized as follows. First, a brief review of the MGCFA approach to testing factor invariance (FI) is presented. Next, PLE is discussed, followed by a description of how it can be used to assess FI. The goals of the study, including research questions and hypotheses are then presented, as is the methodology used to address them. Finally, the results of the simulation study and a discussion of those results are presented.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Correction for Attenuation of the Multiple Correlation Coefficient Given Non-Independent Error Scores A Comparison of Clustering Methods when Group Sizes are Unequal, Outliers are Present, and in the Presence of Noise Variables Testing Individual vs Group Mean Differences in Social Science Research Memories of Isadore Newman Comparison of Tests for Heteroscedasticity in Between-Subject ANOVA Models
×
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