4.4 Article

Testing Measurement Invariance over Time with Intensive Longitudinal Data and Identifying a Source of Non-invariance

Journal

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10705511.2022.2130331

Keywords

Alignment; autoregression; cross-classified; longitudinal; measurement invariance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Longitudinal measurement invariance (LMI) is critical for studying change over time with intensive longitudinal data (ILD). In this study, we propose cross-classified factor analysis (CCFA) and alignment optimization (AO) as methods to detect non-invariant item parameters and non-invariant time points, respectively, in LMI testing with ILD. Our results from a Monte Carlo simulation study show that CCFA is an excellent tool for ILD LMI testing, even when autoregression (AR) is misspecified, and can identify a source of non-invariance using a covariate. AO can supplement CCFA in finding non-invariant time points, but it requires a large number of persons.
Longitudinal measurement invariance (LMI) is a critical prerequisite to assessing change over time with intensive longitudinal data (ILD). For LMI testing with ILD, we propose cross-classified factor analysis (CCFA) to detect non-invariant item parameters and alignment optimization (AO) to detect non-invariant time points as a supplement to CCFA. In addition, we use a covariate in CCFA to identify a source of non-invariance. To evaluate the proposed models under unique features of ILD, such as autoregression (AR), we conducted a Monte Carlo simulation study. The results showed CCFA can be an excellent tool for ILD LMI testing regardless of simulation factors even when AR was misspecified and can identify a source of non-invariance using a covariate. AO can supplement CCFA to find non-invariant time points although AO requires a large number of persons. We provide detailed discussions and practical suggestions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available