Neyer, Franz J.

Schubach, Elisabeth

Sonntag, Maximilian

English

Open Access LMU

pairfam Technical Paper06Measurement Invariance of thePairfam ScalesFebruary 2015Maximilian Sonntag, Franz J. Neyer,  Elisabeth SchubachCite as:Sonntag, Maximilian, Franz J. Neyer, and Elisabeth Schubach (2015): Measurement Invariance of thePairfam Scales. pairfam Technical Paper No. 06. https://doi.org/10.5282/ubm/epub.91988Funded as long-term project by the German Research Foundation (DFG) Measurement Invariance of the Pairfam Scales 03th February 2015 1  Measurement Invariance  of the Pairfam Scales  Maximilian Sonntag, Franz J. Neyer, & Elisabeth Schubach  Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena   Measurement Invariance Longitudinal studies often aim at modelling or comparing time trajectories of latent variables. Therefore, latent variables of different measurement occasions must be comparable over time, that is, the psychometric properties of the repeatedly applied instruments (i.e., indicators) must not change (Geiser, 2010), and measurement invariance (over time) needs to be established. This is done by constraining certain parameters of the measurement model to be equal (i.e., invariant).  Strong factorial invariance is needed for certain applications, such as comparing latent means. Strong factorial invariance implies that (a) the number of factors and the pattern of loadings, (b) the factor loadings and (c) the item’s intercepts are invariant (Meredith, 1993).   Pairfam Scales In order to investigate measurement invariance of the pairfam scales, we tested for strong factorial invariance. Several fit indices of the corresponding measurement models can be found in table 1. According to Hu and Bentler (1999), a cutoff value close to .06 for RMSEA and close to .95 for CFI is desirable.   The descriptions of the scales are adapted from Scales Manual Release 5 (generated from the anchor data set). Due to methodological limitations, scales consisting of at least three items were analyzed. Nearly all measurement models fit very well (RMSEA < .06, CFI > .95), indicating strong measurement invariance for most pairfam scales. Importantly, calculated parameters are sample-specific. For further (i.e., own) analyses, these parameters need to be re-established using respective data.   Table 1  Fit indices for strong factorial invariance   Name of scale Variable (Items) χ² df χ²/df RMSEA CFI Expectations towards partnership       VOP: Negative expectations vopneg2 (5) 269.92 37 7.30 .033 .986 Single Module       Broad exploration  siexplbr (3) 18.17 9 2.02 .023 .997 Broad exploratione siexplbr2 (3) 18.93 9 2.10 .031 .994 In-depth exploration  siexplde (4) 279.25 168 1.66 .039 .967 Current partnership (status quo)       Ambivalence about moving in togetherf ambcoh (3) 13.27 9 1.47 .074 .986 Ambivalence regarding marriagef  ambmarr (3)  33.20 26 1.28 .050 .988  Measurement Invariance of the Pairfam Scales 03th February 2015 2  Name of scale Variable (Items) χ² df χ²/df RMSEA CFI Quality of relationship indicators (CASI)       Fear of love withdrawal  lovewitanx_apd (3) 72.51 51 1.42 .020 .994 Autonomy indep_apd (4) 262.92 104 2.53 .026 .988 Feelings of self-efficacy/competence in the ps. comppart2 (3) 42.02 26 1.62 .016 .997 Subjective instability of partnershipf instab_apd (3) 319.44 84 3.80 .038 .985 Hostile attribution hostattr_aps (3) 5.59 26 1.95 .019 .996 Areas of conflicts and frequency of manifest c. confldom_apd (6) 208.98 57 3.67 .040 .974 Dyadic coping – respondent dycop_aps (3) 73.50 26 2.83 .026 .993 Dyadic coping – respondent’s partner dycop_apo (3) 71.96 26 2.77 .025 .996 Personality (CASI)       Explosiveness and tendency to anger  explosive (3) 68.75 9 7.64 .033 .996 Shyness shyness (3) 134.94 9 14.99 .048 .989 Shyness (adjusted)a - (3) 93.09 9 1.34 .039 .992 Emotional autonomy emotautn (3) 11.19 9 1.24 .006 1.000 Emotional autonomy (adjusted)a - (3) 28.49 9 3.17 .019 .997 Well-being (CASI)       Self-esteem selfworth (3) 1131.09 84 13.46 .049 .971 Self-esteem (adjusted)a - (3) 1312.42 84 15.62 .053 .966 Depressiveness (STDS-T) depressive (10) 13182.89 758 17.39 .058 .876 Depressiveness (STDS-T) (3 parcels)b - (3) 162.20 51 3.18 .021 .998 Activity (stress during past 4 weeks) activ2 (3) 47.43 9 5.27 .025 .997 Overload (stress during past 4 weeks) stress (3) 36.27 9 4.03 .021 .999 Children Modules       Temperament of child 1 (new born)c temperc1 (4) 156.27 104 1.50 .076 .782 Parental self-efficacy / competence comperz (4) 36.68 21 1.75 .019 .996 Coparenting with current partner coparent (3) 39.06 9 4.34 .042 .993 Coparenting with other partner of CAPI child coparent_opk1 (3) 17.99 9 2.00 .109 .978 Overprotectiveness overprotect (3) 21.86 9 2.43 .027 .997 Readiness to make sacrificesd sacrif_pacs (3) 219.26 26 8.43 .095 .912 Readiness to make sacrifices (without wave 2) sacrif_pacs (3) 29.90 9 3.32 .029 .996 Note.  a Present method effect has been corrected (cf. Sonntag, Mund, Schubach, & Neyer, 2014).  b The measurement model did not comprise 10 single indicators but three parcels. Parcels were constructed using the item-to-construct method (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002).  c The corresponding items were presented to a slightly different sample in wave two.  d A change in the interview method took place after wave two. Thus, the possibility of a method effect similar to constructs labeled with a cannot be excluded. Furthermore, the number of cases in wave two is fairly small due to low participation in parenting questionnaire.  e Due to a change in number of items, we could not include all measurement occasions (only wave three and four were included). f The tested model leads to Heywood cases (i.e., some negative variances). If the error persists when using the data for own purposes, the applied model requires further investigation.  χ² = chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index.  Measurement Invariance of the Pairfam Scales 03th February 2015 3  References Geiser, C. (2010). Datenanalyse mit Mplus. doi:10.1007/978-3-531-92042-9 Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1 Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543. doi:10.1007/BF02294825 Sonntag, M., Mund, M., Schubach, E., & Neyer, F. J. (2014). Report of a method effect in the assessment of personality traits in pairfam. Technical report. Lehrstuhl für Differentielle Psychologie, Persönlichkeitspsychologie und Psychologische Diagnostik, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Jena, Germany.  

Measurement Invariance of the Pairfam Scales

https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/91988/1/pairfam_TP_06.pdf

Measurement Invariance of the Pairfam Scales

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Open Access LMU