An Investigation of the Alignment Method With Polytomous Indicators Under Conditions of Partial Measurement Invariance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The alignment method (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014) is an alternative to multiple-group factor analysis for estimating measurement models and testing for measurement invariance across groups. Simulation studies evaluating the performance of the alignment for estimating measurement models across groups show promising results for continuous indicators. This simulation study builds on previous research by investigating the performance of the alignment method’s measurement models estimates with polytomous indicators under conditions of systematically increasing, partial measurement invariance. We also present an evaluation of the testing procedure, which has not been the focus of previous simulation studies. Results indicate that the alignment adequately recovers parameter estimates under small and moderate amounts of noninvariance, with issues only arising in extreme conditions. In addition, the statistical tests of invariance were fairly conservative, and had less power for items with more extreme skew. We include recommendations for using the alignment method based on these results.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it