↓ Skip to main content

Advances in Measurement Invariance and Mean Comparison of Latent Variables: Equivalence Testing and A Projection-Based Approach

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Advances in Measurement Invariance and Mean Comparison of Latent Variables: Equivalence Testing and A Projection-Based Approach
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01823
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ge Jiang, Yujiao Mai, Ke-Hai Yuan

Abstract

Measurement invariance (MI) entails that measurements in different groups are comparable, and is a logical prerequisite when studying difference or change across groups. MI is commonly evaluated using multi-group structural equation modeling through a sequence of chi-square and chi-square-difference tests. However, under the conventional null hypothesis testing (NHT) one can never be confident enough to claim MI even when all test statistics are not significant. Equivalence testing (ET) has been recently proposed to replace NHT for studying MI. ET informs researchers a size of possible misspecification and allows them to claim that measurements are practically equivalent across groups if the size of misspecification is smaller than a tolerable value. Another recent advancement in studying MI is a projection-based method under which testing the cross-group equality of means of latent traits does not require the intercepts equal across groups. The purpose of this article is to introduce the key ideas of the two advancements in MI and present a newly developed R package equaltestMI for researchers to easily apply the two methods. A real data example is provided to illustrate the use of the package. It is advocated that researchers should always consider using the two methods whenever MI needs to be examined.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 32%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Lecturer 5 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 44%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 12%
Social Sciences 7 10%
Computer Science 3 4%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 14 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 October 2017.
All research outputs
#17,916,739
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,746
of 30,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,491
of 327,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#482
of 607 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,245 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,739 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 607 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.