测量不变量测试的工作原理

IF 1 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, MATHEMATICAL Applied Psychological Measurement Pub Date : 2024-06-14 DOI:10.1177/01466216241261708
J. Lasker
{"title":"测量不变量测试的工作原理","authors":"J. Lasker","doi":"10.1177/01466216241261708","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Psychometricians have argued that measurement invariance (MI) testing is needed to know if the same psychological constructs are measured in different groups. Data from five experiments allowed that position to be tested. In the first, participants answered questionnaires on belief in free will and either the meaning of life or the meaning of a nonsense concept called “gavagai.” Since the meaning of life and the meaning of gavagai conceptually differ, MI should have been violated when groups were treated like their measurements were identical. MI was severely violated, indicating the questionnaires were interpreted differently. In the second and third experiments, participants were randomized to watch treatment videos explaining figural matrices rules or task-irrelevant control videos. Participants then took intelligence and figural matrices tests. The intervention worked and the experimental group had an additional influence on figural matrix performance in the form of knowing matrix rules, so their performance on the matrices tests violated MI and was anomalously high for their intelligence levels. In both experiments, MI was severely violated. In the fourth and fifth experiments, individuals were exposed to growth mindset interventions that a twin study revealed changed the amount of genetic variance in the target mindset measure without affecting other variables. When comparing treatment and control groups, MI was attainable before but not after treatment. Moreover, the control group showed longitudinal invariance, but the same was untrue for the treatment group. MI testing is likely able to show if the same things are measured in different groups.","PeriodicalId":48300,"journal":{"name":"Applied Psychological Measurement","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measurement Invariance Testing Works\",\"authors\":\"J. Lasker\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01466216241261708\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Psychometricians have argued that measurement invariance (MI) testing is needed to know if the same psychological constructs are measured in different groups. Data from five experiments allowed that position to be tested. In the first, participants answered questionnaires on belief in free will and either the meaning of life or the meaning of a nonsense concept called “gavagai.” Since the meaning of life and the meaning of gavagai conceptually differ, MI should have been violated when groups were treated like their measurements were identical. MI was severely violated, indicating the questionnaires were interpreted differently. In the second and third experiments, participants were randomized to watch treatment videos explaining figural matrices rules or task-irrelevant control videos. Participants then took intelligence and figural matrices tests. The intervention worked and the experimental group had an additional influence on figural matrix performance in the form of knowing matrix rules, so their performance on the matrices tests violated MI and was anomalously high for their intelligence levels. In both experiments, MI was severely violated. In the fourth and fifth experiments, individuals were exposed to growth mindset interventions that a twin study revealed changed the amount of genetic variance in the target mindset measure without affecting other variables. When comparing treatment and control groups, MI was attainable before but not after treatment. Moreover, the control group showed longitudinal invariance, but the same was untrue for the treatment group. MI testing is likely able to show if the same things are measured in different groups.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Psychological Measurement\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Psychological Measurement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216241261708\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MATHEMATICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Psychological Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216241261708","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MATHEMATICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

心理测量学家认为,需要进行测量不变性(MI)测试,以了解不同群体是否测量了相同的心理结构。五项实验的数据对这一观点进行了检验。在第一项实验中,参与者回答了关于自由意志信念、生命意义或一个名为 "gavagai "的无意义概念的意义的问卷。由于 "生命的意义 "和 "gavagai "的意义在概念上是不同的,因此,当各组的测量结果完全相同时,MI 本应受到破坏。而 MI 遭到了严重破坏,这表明对问卷的解释是不同的。在第二和第三次实验中,参与者被随机分配观看解释图式矩阵规则的治疗视频或与任务无关的对照视频。参与者随后参加智力和图形矩阵测试。干预起了作用,实验组通过了解矩阵规则的形式对具象矩阵的表现产生了额外的影响,因此他们在矩阵测试中的表现违反了多元智能原理,并且与他们的智力水平相比异常偏高。在这两个实验中,都严重违反了多元智能。在第四项和第五项实验中,对个体进行了成长型思维模式干预,一项双胞胎研究显示,这种干预改变了目标思维模式测量的遗传变异量,而不影响其他变量。在比较治疗组和对照组时,MI 在治疗前是可以达到的,但在治疗后却无法达到。此外,对照组显示出纵向不变性,但治疗组的情况却并非如此。如果在不同的组别中测量相同的东西,多元智能测试很可能能够显示出这一点。
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
Measurement Invariance Testing Works
Psychometricians have argued that measurement invariance (MI) testing is needed to know if the same psychological constructs are measured in different groups. Data from five experiments allowed that position to be tested. In the first, participants answered questionnaires on belief in free will and either the meaning of life or the meaning of a nonsense concept called “gavagai.” Since the meaning of life and the meaning of gavagai conceptually differ, MI should have been violated when groups were treated like their measurements were identical. MI was severely violated, indicating the questionnaires were interpreted differently. In the second and third experiments, participants were randomized to watch treatment videos explaining figural matrices rules or task-irrelevant control videos. Participants then took intelligence and figural matrices tests. The intervention worked and the experimental group had an additional influence on figural matrix performance in the form of knowing matrix rules, so their performance on the matrices tests violated MI and was anomalously high for their intelligence levels. In both experiments, MI was severely violated. In the fourth and fifth experiments, individuals were exposed to growth mindset interventions that a twin study revealed changed the amount of genetic variance in the target mindset measure without affecting other variables. When comparing treatment and control groups, MI was attainable before but not after treatment. Moreover, the control group showed longitudinal invariance, but the same was untrue for the treatment group. MI testing is likely able to show if the same things are measured in different groups.
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
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: Applied Psychological Measurement publishes empirical research on the application of techniques of psychological measurement to substantive problems in all areas of psychology and related disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Effect of Differential Item Functioning on Computer Adaptive Testing Under Different Conditions. Evaluating the Construct Validity of Instructional Manipulation Checks as Measures of Careless Responding to Surveys. A Mark-Recapture Approach to Estimating Item Pool Compromise. Estimating Test-Retest Reliability in the Presence of Self-Selection Bias and Learning/Practice Effects. The Improved EMS Algorithm for Latent Variable Selection in M3PL Model.
×
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