IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/110358.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Use of the Lagrange multiplier test for assessing measurement invariance under model misspecification

Author

Listed:
  • Guastadisegni, Lucia
  • Cagnone, Silvia
  • Moustaki, Irini
  • Vasdekis, Vassilis

Abstract

This article studies the Type I error, false positive rates, and power of four versions of the Lagrange multiplier test to detect measurement noninvariance in item response theory (IRT) models for binary data under model misspecification. The tests considered are the Lagrange multiplier test computed with the Hessian and cross-product approach, the generalized Lagrange multiplier test and the generalized jackknife score test. The two model misspecifications are those of local dependence among items and nonnormal distribution of the latent variable. The power of the tests is computed in two ways, empirically through Monte Carlo simulation methods and asymptotically, using the asymptotic distribution of each test under the alternative hypothesis. The performance of these tests is evaluated by means of a simulation study. The results highlight that, under mild model misspecification, all tests have good performance while, under strong model misspecification, the tests performance deteriorates, especially for false positive rates under local dependence and power for small sample size under misspecification of the latent variable distribution. In general, the Lagrange multiplier test computed with the Hessian approach and the generalized Lagrange multiplier test have better performance in terms of false positive rates while the Lagrange multiplier test computed with the cross-product approach has the highest power for small sample sizes. The asymptotic power turns out to be a good alternative to the classic empirical power because it is less time consuming. The Lagrange tests studied here have been also applied to a real data set.

Suggested Citation

  • Guastadisegni, Lucia & Cagnone, Silvia & Moustaki, Irini & Vasdekis, Vassilis, 2022. "Use of the Lagrange multiplier test for assessing measurement invariance under model misspecification," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 110358, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:110358
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/110358/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lu, H.Y. Kevin & Young, G. Alastair, 2012. "Parametric bootstrap under model mis-specification," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(8), pages 2410-2420.
    2. R. Bock & Murray Aitkin, 1981. "Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 46(4), pages 443-459, December.
    3. Daniel Oberski & Geert Kollenburg & Jeroen Vermunt, 2013. "A Monte Carlo evaluation of three methods to detect local dependence in binary data latent class models," Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, Springer;German Classification Society - Gesellschaft für Klassifikation (GfKl);Japanese Classification Society (JCS);Classification and Data Analysis Group of the Italian Statistical Society (CLADAG);International Federation of Classification Societies (IFCS), vol. 7(3), pages 267-279, September.
    4. James G. MacKinnon, 2002. "Bootstrap inference in econometrics," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 615-645, November.
    5. White, Halbert, 1982. "Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Misspecified Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 1-25, January.
    6. Cees Glas, 1999. "Modification indices for the 2-PL and the nominal response model," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 64(3), pages 273-294, September.
    7. Jun Shao, 1992. "Jackknifing in generalized linear models," Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Springer;The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, vol. 44(4), pages 673-686, December.
    8. Engle, Robert F., 1984. "Wald, likelihood ratio, and Lagrange multiplier tests in econometrics," Handbook of Econometrics, in: Z. Griliches† & M. D. Intriligator (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 13, pages 775-826, Elsevier.
    9. Jean‐Paul Fox & Cees A. W. Glas, 2005. "Bayesian modification indices for IRT models," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 59(1), pages 95-106, February.
    10. Wim Linden & Cees Glas, 2010. "Statistical Tests of Conditional Independence Between Responses and/or Response Times on Test Items," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 75(1), pages 120-139, March.
    11. Albert Satorra, 1989. "Alternative test criteria in covariance structure analysis: A unified approach," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 54(1), pages 131-151, March.
    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. Sandip Sinharay & Peter W. van Rijn, 2020. "Assessing Fit of the Lognormal Model for Response Times," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 45(5), pages 534-568, October.
    2. Scott Monroe, 2019. "Estimation of Expected Fisher Information for IRT Models," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 44(4), pages 431-447, August.
    3. Daniel Oberski & Geert Kollenburg & Jeroen Vermunt, 2013. "A Monte Carlo evaluation of three methods to detect local dependence in binary data latent class models," Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, Springer;German Classification Society - Gesellschaft für Klassifikation (GfKl);Japanese Classification Society (JCS);Classification and Data Analysis Group of the Italian Statistical Society (CLADAG);International Federation of Classification Societies (IFCS), vol. 7(3), pages 267-279, September.
    4. Tue Gørgens & Allan Würtz, 2012. "Testing a parametric function against a non‐parametric alternative in IV and GMM settings," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 15(3), pages 462-489, October.
    5. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G., 1989. "Testing for Consistency using Artificial Regressions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(3), pages 363-384, December.
    6. Theodore Panagiotidis & Georgios Papapanagiotou, 2024. "A note on the determinants of NFTs returns," Working Paper series 24-07, Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis.
    7. Hamilton, James D., 1996. "Specification testing in Markov-switching time-series models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 127-157, January.
    8. Björn Andersson & Tao Xin, 2021. "Estimation of Latent Regression Item Response Theory Models Using a Second-Order Laplace Approximation," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 46(2), pages 244-265, April.
    9. C. Glas & Anna Dagohoy, 2007. "A Person Fit Test For Irt Models For Polytomous Items," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 72(2), pages 159-180, June.
    10. Jinyong Hahn & Ruoyao Shi, 2021. "Breusch and Pagan’s (1980) Test Revisited," Working Papers 202110, University of California at Riverside, Department of Economics.
    11. Ke-Hai Yuan & Peter Bentler, 2006. "Mean Comparison: Manifest Variable Versus Latent Variable," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 71(1), pages 139-159, March.
    12. Jeffrey M. Woodridge, 1988. "A Unified Approach to Robust, Regression-Based Specification Tests," Working papers 480, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
    13. Albert Maydeu-Olivares & Harry Joe, 2006. "Limited Information Goodness-of-fit Testing in Multidimensional Contingency Tables," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 71(4), pages 713-732, December.
    14. Demos, Antonis & Sentana, Enrique, 1998. "Testing for GARCH effects: a one-sided approach," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 97-127, June.
    15. Dastoor, Naorayex K., 2003. "The equality of comparable extended families of classical-type and Hausman-type statistics," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 313-330, December.
    16. Thanasis Stengos & Ximing Wu, 2010. "Information-Theoretic Distribution Test with Application to Normality," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(3), pages 307-329.
    17. Dylan Molenaar & Paul Boeck, 2018. "Response Mixture Modeling: Accounting for Heterogeneity in Item Characteristics across Response Times," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 83(2), pages 279-297, June.
    18. Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 1991. "On the application of robust, regression- based diagnostics to models of conditional means and conditional variances," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 5-46, January.
    19. Ke-Hai Yuan & Ying Cheng & Jeff Patton, 2014. "Information Matrices and Standard Errors for MLEs of Item Parameters in IRT," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 79(2), pages 232-254, April.
    20. Ting Wang & Carolin Strobl & Achim Zeileis & Edgar C. Merkle, 2018. "Score-Based Tests of Differential Item Functioning via Pairwise Maximum Likelihood Estimation," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 83(1), pages 132-155, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    MIMIC models; binary data; generalized Lagrange multiplier test;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C1 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ehl:lserod:110358. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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.