Skip to main content
Log in

Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance

  • Published:
Psychometrika Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Several concepts are introduced and defined: measurement invariance, structural bias, weak measurement invariance, strong factorial invariance, and strict factorial invariance. It is shown that factorial invariance has implications for (weak) measurement invariance. Definitions of fairness in employment/admissions testing and salary equity are provided and it is argued that strict factorial invariance is required for fairness/equity to exist. Implications for item and test bias are developed and it is argued that item or test bias probably depends on the existence of latent variables that are irrelevant to the primary goal of test constructers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Birnbaum, M. H. (1985). Relationships among models of salary bias.American Psychologist, 40, 862–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloxom, B. (1972). Alternative approaches to factorial invariance.Psychometrika, 37, 425–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H. & Mazzeo, J. (1993, June). The identifiability of expected score in conceptualizations of differential item functioning for polytomously scored items. Paper presented at Psychometric Society Annual Meeting.

  • French, J. W., Ekstrom, R. B., & Price, L. A. (1963).Kit of reference tests for cognitive factors. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, K. (1991).A reconsideration of bias in employment testing from the perspective of factorial invariance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guttman, L. (1955). The determinacy of factor score matrices with implications for five basic problems in common factor theory.British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 8, 65–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, J. L. (1985). Remodeling old models of intelligence. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.),Handbook of intelligence. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, J. L. (1986). Intellectual ability concepts. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 3). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, J. L., McArdle, J. J., Mason, R. (1983). When is invariance not invariant: A practical scientist's look at the ethereal concept of factor invariance.The Southern Psychologist, 1, 179–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests.Psychometrika, 36, 109–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G. & Sörbom, D. (1988).LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications (2nd ed.). Chicago: SPSS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Junker, B. W. (1991). Essential independence and likelihood based ability estimation for polytomous items.Psychometrika, 56, 255–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearns, R. J. (1971).Latent class models for response emission tests. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. M. (1952). A theory of test scores. New York: Psychometric Society;Psychometric Monograph, No. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. M. (1980).Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. M. & Novick, M. R. (1968).Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzeo, J. & Chang, H. (1993, June).Detection of differential item functioning for polytomously scored items. An adaptation of Shealy and Stout's SIBTEST procedure. Paper presented at Psychometric Society Annual Meeting.

  • McArdle, J. J. & Cattell, R. B. (in press). Structural equation models of factorial invariance in parallel proportion profiles and oblique confactor problems.Multivariate Behavioral Research.

  • McCallum, R. C. & Tucker, L. R. (1991). Representing sources of error in the common factor model: Implications for theory and practice.Psychological Bulletin, 109, 502–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellenbergh, G. J. (1989). Item bias and item response theory.International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 127–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meredith, W. (1964). Notes on factorial invariance.Psychometrika, 29, 177–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meredith, W. (1971). Poisson distributions of error in Mental Test Theory.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 24, 49–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meredith, W. & Millsap, R. E. (1992). On the misuse of manifest variables in the detection of measurement bias.Psychometrika, 57, 289–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millsap, R. E. & Meredith, W. (in press). Statistical evidence in salary discrimination studies: Nonparametric inferential conditions.Applied Psychological Measurement.

  • Muthén, B. O. (1989). Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations.Psychometrika, 54, 557–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, B. & Lehman, J. (1985). Multiple group IRT modeling: Applications to item bias analysis.Journal of Educational Statistics, 10, 133–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sands, L., Terry, H., & Meredith, W. (1989). Change and stability in adult intellectual functioning assessed by Wechsler item responses.Psychology and Aging, 2, 79–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shealy, R. & Stout, W. (1993a). An item response theory model for test bias and differential test functioning. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer.Differential item functioning: Theory and practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shealy, R. & Stout, W. (1993b). A model based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF as well as item bias/DIF.Psychometrika, 159–194.

  • Silny, F. & Meredith, W. (1973). Test of a model for response emission tests.Proceedings, 81st Annual Convention, American Psychological Association.

  • Stout, W. (1990). A new item response theory modeling approach with applications to unidimensionality assessment and ability estimation.Psychometrika, 55, 293–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sörbom, D. (1974). A general method for studying differences in factor means and factor structures between groups.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 28, 229–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tryon, R. C. (1958). General dimensions of individual differences: Cluster analysis vs. factor analysis.Educational & Psychological Measurement, 18, 447–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, D. (1981).Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Presidential address delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society in Berkeley, California, June 18–20, 1993.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meredith, W. Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika 58, 525–543 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294825

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294825

Key words

Navigation