2015PsihologijaOpen access

Controlling acquiescence bias in measurement invariance tests

Julian Aichholzer

Open full text 10 citations

Abstract

Assessing measurement invariance (MI) is an important cornerstone in establishing equivalence of instruments and comparability of constructs. However, a common concern is that respondent differences in acquiescence response style (ARS) behavior could entail a lack of MI for the measured constructs. This study investigates if and how ARS impacts MI and the level of MI achieved. Data from two representative samples and two popular short Big Five personality scales were analyzed to study hypothesized ARS differences among educational groups. Multiple-group factor analysis and the random intercept method for controlling ARS are used to investigate MI with and without controlling for ARS. Results suggest that, contrary to expectations, controlling for ARS had little impact on conclusions regarding the level of MI of the instruments. Thus, the results suggest that testing MI is not an appropriate means for detecting ARS differences per se. Implications and further research areas are discussed.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Assessing measurement invariance (MI) is an important cornerstone in establishing equivalence of instruments and comparability of constructs. However, a common concern is that respondent differences in acquiescence response style (ARS) behavior could entail a lack of MI for the measured constructs. This study investigates if and how ARS impacts MI and the level of MI achieved. Data from two representative samples and two popular short Big Five personality scales were analyzed to study hypothesized ARS differences among educational groups. Multiple-group factor analysis and the random intercept method for controlling ARS are used to investigate MI with and without controlling for ARS. Results suggest that, contrary to expectations, controlling for ARS had little impact on conclusions regarding the level of MI of the instruments. Thus, the results suggest that testing MI is not an appropriate means for detecting ARS differences per se. Implications and further research areas are discussed.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 10 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Assessing measurement invariance (MI) is an important cornerstone in establishing equivalence of instruments and comparability of constructs. However, a common concern is that respondent differences in acquiescence response style (ARS) behavior could entail a lack of MI for the measured constructs. This study investigates if and how ARS impacts MI and the level of MI achieved. Data from two representative samples and two popular short Big Five personality scales were analyzed to study hypothesized ARS differences among educational groups. Multiple-group factor analysis and the random intercept method for controlling ARS are used to investigate MI with and without controlling for ARS. Results suggest that, contrary to expectations, controlling for ARS had little impact on conclusions regarding the level of MI of the instruments. Thus, the results suggest that testing MI is not an appropriate means for detecting ARS differences per se. Implications and further research areas are discussed.

Key concepts: Acquiescence, Measurement invariance, Comparability, Respondent, Equivalence (formal languages), Psychology, Social psychology, Personality

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Controlling acquiescence bias in measurement invariance tests — Research Paper | ScholarLens