2023Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary JournalOpen access

Does Acquiescence Disagree with Measurement Invariance Testing?

E. Damiano D’Urso, Jesper Tijmstra, Jeroen K. Vermunt, Kim De Roover

Open full text 4 citations

Abstract

Measurement invariance (MI) is required for validly comparing latent constructs measured by multiple ordinal self-report items. Non-invariances may occur when disregarding (group differences in) an acquiescence response style (ARS; an agreeing tendency regardless of item content). If non-invariance results solely from neglecting ARS, one should not worry about scale inequivalences but model the ARS instead. In a simulation study, we investigated the effect of ARS on MI testing, both when including ARS as a factor in the measurement model or not. For (semi-) balanced scales, disregarding a large ARS resulted in non-invariance already at the configural level. This was resolved by including an ARS factor for all groups. For unbalanced scales, disregarding ARS did not affect MI testing, and including an ARS factor often resulted in non-convergence. Implications and recommendations for applied research are discussed.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Measurement invariance (MI) is required for validly comparing latent constructs measured by multiple ordinal self-report items. Non-invariances may occur when disregarding (group differences in) an acquiescence response style (ARS; an agreeing tendency regardless of item content). If non-invariance results solely from neglecting ARS, one should not worry about scale inequivalences but model the ARS instead. In a simulation study, we investigated the effect of ARS on MI testing, both when including ARS as a factor in the measurement model or not. For (semi-) balanced scales, disregarding a large ARS resulted in non-invariance already at the configural level. This was resolved by including an ARS factor for all groups. For unbalanced scales, disregarding ARS did not affect MI testing, and including an ARS factor often resulted in non-convergence. Implications and recommendations for applied research are discussed.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 4 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

Measurement invariance (MI) is required for validly comparing latent constructs measured by multiple ordinal self-report items. Non-invariances may occur when disregarding (group differences in) an acquiescence response style (ARS; an agreeing tendency regardless of item content). If non-invariance results solely from neglecting ARS, one should not worry about scale inequivalences but model the ARS instead. In a simulation study, we investigated the effect of ARS on MI testing, both when including ARS as a factor in the measurement model or not. For (semi-) balanced scales, disregarding a large ARS resulted in non-invariance already at the configural level. This was resolved by including an ARS factor for all groups. For unbalanced scales, disregarding ARS did not affect MI testing, and including an ARS factor often resulted in non-convergence. Implications and recommendations for applied research are discussed.

Key concepts: Acquiescence, Measurement invariance, Worry, Psychology, Social psychology, Factor analysis, Econometrics, Affect (linguistics)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Does Acquiescence Disagree with Measurement Invariance Testing? — Research Paper | ScholarLens