Testing measurement invariance in longitudinal data with ordered-categorical measures.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A goal of developmental research is to examine individual changes in constructs over time. The accuracy of the models answering such research questions hinges on the assumption of longitudinal measurement invariance: The repeatedly measured variables need to represent the same construct in the same metric over time. Measurement invariance can be studied through factor models examining the relations between the observed indicators and the latent constructs. In longitudinal research, ordered-categorical indicators such as self- or observer-report Likert scales are commonly used, and these measures often do not approximate continuous normal distributions. The present didactic article extends previous work on measurement invariance to the longitudinal case for ordered-categorical indicators. We address a number of problems that commonly arise in testing measurement invariance with longitudinal data, including model identification and interpretation, sparse data, missing data, and estimation issues. We also develop a procedure and associated R program for gauging the practical significance of the violations of invariance. We illustrate these issues with an empirical example using a subscale from the Mexican American Cultural Values scale. Finally, we provide comparisons of the current capabilities of 3 major latent variable programs (lavaan, Mplus, OpenMx) and computer scripts for addressing longitudinal measurement invariance. (PsycINFO Database Record
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.114 | 0.505 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".