IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/eduaab/201-en.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Invariance analyses in large-scale studies

Author

Listed:
  • Fons J. R. Van de Vijver

    (Tilburg University)

  • Francesco Avvisati

    (OECD)

  • Eldad Davidov

    (University of Cologne)

  • Michael Eid

    (Free University of Berlin)

  • Jean-Paul Fox

    (University of Twente)

  • Noémie Le Donné

    (OECD)

  • Kimberley Lek

    (Utrecht University)

  • Bart Meuleman

    (KU Leuven)

  • Marco Paccagnella

    (OECD)

  • Rens van de Schoot

    (Utrecht University)

Abstract

Large-scale surveys such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), and the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competences (PIAAC) use advanced statistical models to estimate scores of latent traits from multiple observed responses. The comparison of such estimated scores across different groups of respondents is valid to the extent that the same set of estimated parameters holds in each group surveyed. This issue of invariance of parameter estimates is addressed in model fit indices which gauge the likelihood that one set of parameters can be used across all groups. Therefore, the problem of scale invariance across groups of respondents can typically be framed as the question of how well a single model fits the responses of all groups. However, the procedures used to evaluate the fit of these models pose a series of theoretical and practical problems. The most commonly applied procedures to establish invariance of cognitive and non-cognitive scales across countries in large-scale surveys are developed within the framework of confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. The criteria that are commonly applied to evaluate the fit of such models, such as the decrement of the Comparative Fit Index in confirmatory factor analysis, work normally well in the comparison of a small number of countries or groups, but can perform poorly in large-scale surveys featuring a large number of countries. More specifically, the common criteria often result in the non-rejection of metric invariance; however, the step from metric invariance (i.e. identical factor loadings across countries) to scalar invariance (i.e. identical intercepts, in addition to identical factor loadings) appears to set overly restrictive standards for scalar invariance (i.e. identical intercepts). This report sets out to identify and apply novel procedures to evaluate model fit across a large number of groups, or novel scaling models that are more likely to pass common model fit criteria.

Suggested Citation

  • Fons J. R. Van de Vijver & Francesco Avvisati & Eldad Davidov & Michael Eid & Jean-Paul Fox & Noémie Le Donné & Kimberley Lek & Bart Meuleman & Marco Paccagnella & Rens van de Schoot, 2019. "Invariance analyses in large-scale studies," OECD Education Working Papers 201, OECD Publishing.
  • Handle: RePEc:oec:eduaab:201-en
    DOI: 10.1787/254738dd-en
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1787/254738dd-en
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1787/254738dd-en?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexander Robitzsch, 2020. "L p Loss Functions in Invariance Alignment and Haberman Linking with Few or Many Groups," Stats, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-38, August.
    2. Cheng, John W. & Mitomo, Hitoshi & Kamplean, Artima & Seo, Youngkyoung, 2021. "Lesser evil? Public opinion on regulating fake news in Japan, South Korea, and Thailand – A three-country comparison," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9).
    3. Yaël Drunen & Bram Spruyt & Filip Droogenbroeck, 2021. "The Salience of Perceived Societal Conflict in Europe: A 27 Country Study on the Development of a Measure for Generalized Conflict Thinking," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 158(2), pages 595-635, December.

    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:oec:eduaab:201-en. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deoecfr.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.