ERIC Number: ED463302
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 2002-Apr
Reference Count: N/A
A Comparison of Measurement Equivalence Methods Based on Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Item Response Theory.
Flowers, Claudia P.; Raju, Nambury S.; Oshima, T. C.
Current interest in the assessment of measurement equivalence emphasizes two methods of analysis, linear, and nonlinear procedures. This study simulated data using the graded response model to examine the performance of linear (confirmatory factor analysis or CFA) and nonlinear (item-response-theory-based differential item function or IRT-Based DIF) methods. Two CFA procedures, lambda (slope) structure only and lambda and tau (slope and intercept) structures, were used to examine measurement equivalence across focal and reference groups. An IRT-based, noncompensatory DIF (NC-DIF) procedure (N. Raju, W. van der Linden, and P. Fleer, 1995) was also used to examine measurement equivalence across groups. Results indicate that the lambda procedure successfully identified items that had differences in the alpha-parameters, but did not identify items that had differences in the beta-parameters. The lambda/tau and NC-DIF procedures identified items that had differences in the beta-parameters. The lambda-tau and NC-DIF procedures were not, however, as sensitive to items that had differences only in the alpha-parameters. When the focal and reference groups had different ability distributions (or impact), the lambda/tau procedure had a lower (or an acceptable) Type II error rate (in detecting true positives), but had a much higher (or an unacceptable) Type I error rate (in detecting false positives). The NC-DIF procedure appeared to have acceptable Type I and Type II error rates in both no-impact and impact scenarios. (Contains 5 tables and 23 references.) (Author/SLD)
Publication Type: Reports - Research; Speeches/Meeting Papers
Education Level: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A