Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020;27(1):43-55.
doi: 10.1080/10705511.2019.1642754. Epub 2019 Sep 5.

Simplifying the Assessment of Measurement Invariance over Multiple Background Variables: Using Regularized Moderated Nonlinear Factor Analysis to Detect Differential Item Functioning

Daniel J Bauer  1   2 , William C M Belzak  1 , Veronica Cole  2
Affiliations

Simplifying the Assessment of Measurement Invariance over Multiple Background Variables: Using Regularized Moderated Nonlinear Factor Analysis to Detect Differential Item Functioning

Daniel J Bauer et al. Struct Equ Modeling. 2020.

Abstract

Determining whether measures are equally valid for all individuals is a core component of psychometric analysis. Traditionally, the evaluation of measurement invariance (MI) involves comparing independent groups defined by a single categorical covariate (e.g., men and women) to determine if there are any items that display differential item functioning (DIF). More recently, Moderated Nonlinear Factor Analysis (MNLFA) has been advanced as an approach for evaluating MI/DIF simultaneously over multiple background variables, categorical and continuous. Unfortunately, conventional procedures for detecting DIF do not scale well to the more complex MNLFA. The current manuscript therefore proposes a regularization approach to MNLFA estimation that penalizes the likelihood for DIF parameters (i.e., rewarding sparse DIF). This procedure avoids the pitfalls of sequential inference tests, is automated for end users, and is shown to perform well in both a small-scale simulation and an empirical validation study.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Percentage of items without Differential Item Functioning (DIF) for which DIF was (a) retained and significant following regularization (light gray); (b) retained following regularization, regardless of significance (medium gray); (c) significant by the item response theory likelihood ratio test (black). The tuning parameter for regularized DIF evaluation was determined by minimizing Bayes’ Information Criterion.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Percentage of items with Differential Item Functioning (DIF) for which DIF was (a) retained and significant following regularization (light gray); (b) retained following regularization, regardless of significance (medium gray); (c) significant by the item response theory likelihood ratio test (black). The tuning parameter for regularized DIF evaluation was determined by minimizing Bayes’ Information Criterion.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Percentage of items without Differential Item Functioning (DIF) for which DIF was (a) retained and significant following regularization (light gray); (b) retained following regularization, regardless of significance (medium gray); (c) significant by the item response theory likelihood ratio test (black). The tuning parameter for regularized DIF evaluation was determined by minimizing Akaike’s Information Criterion.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Percentage of items with Differential Item Functioning (DIF) for which DIF was (a) retained and significant following regularization (light gray); (b) retained following regularization, regardless of significance (medium gray); (c) significant by the item response theory likelihood ratio test (black). The tuning parameter for regularized DIF evaluation was determined by minimizing Akaike’s Information Criterion.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bauer DJ (2017). A more general model for testing measurement invariance and differential item functioning. Psychological Methods, 22, 507–526. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bauer DJ & Hussong AM (2009). Psychometric approaches for developing commensurate measures across independent studies: traditional and new models. Psychological Methods, 14, 101–125. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Benjamini Y & Hochberg Y (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 57, 289–300.
    1. Brandt H, Cambria J & Kelava A (in press). An adaptive Bayesian lasso approach with spike-and-slab priors to identify multiple linear and nonlinear effects in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal.
    1. Byrne BM, Shavelson RJ, & Muthén B (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466.

LinkOut - more resources