Measurement Invariance in Longitudinal Bifactor Models: Review and Application Based on the <i>p</i> Factor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bifactor models are increasingly being utilized to study latent constructs such as psychopathology and cognition, which change over the lifespan. Although longitudinal measurement invariance (MI) testing helps ensure valid interpretation of change in a construct over time, this is rarely and inconsistently performed in bifactor models. Our review of MI simulation literature revealed that only one study assessed MI in bifactor models under limited conditions. Recommendations for how to assess MI in bifactor models are suggested based on existing simulation studies of related models. Estimator choice and influence of missing data on MI are also discussed. An empirical example based on a model of the general psychopathology factor ( p) elucidates our recommendations, with the present model of p being the first to exhibit residual MI across gender and time. Thus, changes in the ordered-categorical indicators can be attributed to changes in the latent factors. However, further work is needed to clarify MI guidelines for bifactor models, including considering the impact of model complexity and number of indicators. Nonetheless, using the guidelines justified herein to establish MI allows findings from bifactor models to be more confidently interpreted, increasing their comparability and utility.
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 | 0.028 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".