IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intell/v77y2019ics0160289619301813.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Age and sex invariance of the International Cognitive Ability Resource (ICAR)

Author

Listed:
  • Young, Stephanie Ruth
  • Keith, Timothy Z.
  • Bond, Mark A.

Abstract

To encourage broader assessment of cognitive abilities in research across scientific fields, Condon and Revelle (2014) developed the first cognitive assessment in the public domain, the International Cognitive Ability Resource (ICAR). Despite initial support for its psychometric properties, little is known about the construct validity of the ICAR across distinct groups of individuals. In order to meaningfully interpret ICAR scores across diverse populations, measurement invariance must be established. To this end, a multiple group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) was conducted on the full 60-item ICAR (ICAR60) and the 16-item Sample Test (ICAR16) to test for invariance across self-reported biological sex and age groups. A moderated nonlinear factor analysis (MNLFA) was conducted on the ICAR16 to test for differential item functioning (DIF) across linear age, age squared, sex, and their respective interaction terms. The baseline MGCFA models proposed by the test developers fit the data well for males and females and across age groups based on the fit indices Mc, CFI, TLI, and RMSEA. In the MCGFA, both forms demonstrated acceptable changes in the Mc (∆< .02) and CFI (∆< .01) in both loading- and threshold-constrained models for the sex and age group models. The MNLFA supported the weak and strong measurement invariance of the ICAR16 found in the MGCFA; no meaningful differences in item thresholds or factor-loadings were found across age, sex, or their interaction terms. Overall findings provide evidence that both forms measure the same constructs across sex and age, and the same strength of the relations exists among the first-order factors and the items. Despite these findings, the internal consistency of the subscales suggests only the total score of the ICAR16 be used for research; those interested in the subscales of the ICAR are advised to use the ICAR60.

Suggested Citation

  • Young, Stephanie Ruth & Keith, Timothy Z. & Bond, Mark A., 2019. "Age and sex invariance of the International Cognitive Ability Resource (ICAR)," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:77:y:2019:i:c:s0160289619301813
    DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2019.101399
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289619301813
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101399?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William Meredith, 1993. "Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 58(4), pages 525-543, December.
    2. Roderick McDonald, 1989. "An index of goodness-of-fit based on noncentrality," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 6(1), pages 97-103, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hofmans, J. & Pepermans, R. & Loix, E., 2009. "Measurement invariance matters: A case made for the ORTOFIN," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 667-674, August.
    2. Johan Oud & Manuel Voelkle, 2014. "Do missing values exist? Incomplete data handling in cross-national longitudinal studies by means of continuous time modeling," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3271-3288, November.
    3. César Merino-Soto & Gina Chávez-Ventura & Verónica López-Fernández & Guillermo M. Chans & Filiberto Toledano-Toledano, 2022. "Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-L): Psychometric and Measurement Invariance Evidence in Peruvian Undergraduate Students," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-17, September.
    4. Liat Ayalon, 2018. "Perceived Age Discrimination: A Precipitator or a Consequence of Depressive Symptoms?," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 73(5), pages 860-869.
    5. Ihsana Sabriani Borualogo & Ferran Casas, 2023. "Bullying Victimisation and Children’s Subjective Well-being: A Comparative Study in Seven Asian Countries," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 16(1), pages 1-27, February.
    6. Shelley H. Liu & Yitong Chen & Jordan R. Kuiper & Emily Ho & Jessie P. Buckley & Leah Feuerstahler, 2024. "Applying Latent Variable Models to Estimate Cumulative Exposure Burden to Chemical Mixtures and Identify Latent Exposure Subgroups: A Critical Review and Future Directions," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 16(2), pages 482-502, July.
    7. Janina Isabel Steinert & Lucie Dale Cluver & G. J. Melendez-Torres & Sebastian Vollmer, 2018. "One Size Fits All? The Validity of a Composite Poverty Index Across Urban and Rural Households in South Africa," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 136(1), pages 51-72, February.
    8. Paul MUKUCHA & Divaries Cosmas JARAVAZA & Forbes MAKUDZA, 2022. "Towards Gender-Based Market Segmentation: The Differential Influence of Gender on Dining Experiences in the University Cafeteria Industry," Management and Economics Review, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 7(2), pages 182-200, June.
    9. Amber Mosewich & Valerie Hadd & Peter Crocker & Bruno Zumbo, 2013. "Invariance Testing of the SF-36 Health Survey in Women Breast Cancer Survivors: Do Personal and Cancer-related Variables Influence the Meaning of Quality of Life Items?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 110(2), pages 559-577, January.
    10. Stéfanie André, 2014. "Does Trust Mean the Same for Migrants and Natives? Testing Measurement Models of Political Trust with Multi-group Confirmatory Factor Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 963-982, February.
    11. Kroh, Julia & Globocnik, Dietfried & Schultz, Carsten & Holdhof, Frederike & Salomo, Søren, 2024. "Micro-foundations of digital innovation capability – A mixed method approach to develop and validate a multi-dimensional measurement instrument," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    12. Francisco J. Conejo & Lawrence F. Cunningham & Clifford E. Young, 2020. "Revisiting the Brand Luxury Index: new empirical evidence and future directions," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 27(1), pages 108-122, January.
    13. Eldad Davidov & Stefan Thörner & Peter Schmidt & Stefanie Gosen & Carina Wolf, 2011. "Level and change of group-focused enmity in Germany: unconditional and conditional latent growth curve models with four panel waves," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 95(4), pages 481-500, December.
    14. P. Couper, Mick & Cernat, Alexandru & Beth Ofstedal, Mary, 2015. "Estimation of mode effects in the Health and Retirement Study using measurement models," ISER Working Paper Series 2015-19, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    15. Carlos Miguel Lemos & Ross Joseph Gore & Ivan Puga-Gonzalez & F LeRon Shults, 2019. "Dimensionality and factorial invariance of religiosity among Christians and the religiously unaffiliated: A cross-cultural analysis based on the International Social Survey Programme," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-36, May.
    16. Eva Padrosa & Mireia Bolíbar & Mireia Julià & Joan Benach, 2021. "Comparing Precarious Employment Across Countries: Measurement Invariance of the Employment Precariousness Scale for Europe (EPRES-E)," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 154(3), pages 893-915, April.
    17. Willem E. Saris & André Pirralha & Diana Zavala-Rojas, 2018. "Testing the Comparability of Different Types of Social Indicators Across Groups," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 135(3), pages 927-939, February.
    18. Zhenzhen Zhang & Thomas M. Braun & Karen E. Peterson & Howard Hu & Martha M. Téllez-Rojo & Brisa N. Sánchez, 2018. "Extending Tests of Random Effects to Assess for Measurement Invariance in Factor Models," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 10(3), pages 634-650, December.
    19. Manuel Sánchez-García & Joan Batista-Foguet, 2008. "Congruency of the Cognitive and Affective Components of the Attitude as a Moderator on Intention of Condom Use Predictors," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 87(1), pages 139-155, May.
    20. Román, Francisco J. & Morillo, Daniel & Estrada, Eduardo & Escorial, Sergio & Karama, Sherif & Colom, Roberto, 2018. "Brain-intelligence relationships across childhood and adolescence: A latent-variable approach," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 21-29.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:77:y:2019:i:c:s0160289619301813. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/intelligence .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.