Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27266798›Full record

ArticlePsychological methods2017

A more general model for testing measurement invariance and differential item functioning.

Daniel J Bauer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological methods, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 136 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
136citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

136 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Measurement invariance in the Youth Electronic Cigarette Outcome Expectancies Questionnaire across sex and race/ethnicity in pre- to early adolescence.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026
    Article
  11. Assessing measurement bias in substance use disorder criteria associated with childhood adversity and genetic liability.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of PROMIS-29 in patients receiving kidney replacement therapy.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Anti-Asian Racism: Developing a Brief, Reliable, and Valid Measure.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

76 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Daniel J Bauer

Funding

Wave IV Data CollectionP01HD031921 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI HARRIS, KATHLEEN MULLAN · 1994 to 2020
$86.1M
Harmonizing substance use and disorder measures to facilitate multistudy analysesR01DA034636 · NIDA · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BAUER, DANIEL J · 2013 to 2017
$2.9M
NICHD NIH HHS P01 HD031921NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA034636NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The evaluation of measurement invariance is an important step in establishing the validity and comparability of measurements across individuals. Most commonly, measurement invariance has been examined using 1 of 2 primary latent variable modeling approaches: the multiple groups model or the multiple-indicator multiple-cause (MIMIC) model. Both approaches offer opportunities to detect differential item functioning within multi-item scales, and thereby to test measurement invariance, but both approaches also have significant limitations. The multiple groups model allows 1 to examine the invariance of all model parameters but only across levels of a single categorical individual difference variable (e.g., ethnicity). In contrast, the MIMIC model permits both categorical and continuous individual difference variables (e.g., sex and age) but permits only a subset of the model parameters to vary as a function of these characteristics. The current article argues that moderated nonlinear factor analysis (MNLFA) constitutes an alternative, more flexible model for evaluating measurement invariance and differential item functioning. We show that the MNLFA subsumes and combines the strengths of the multiple group and MIMIC models, allowing for a full and simultaneous assessment of measurement invariance and differential item functioning across multiple categorical and/or continuous individual difference variables. The relationships between the MNLFA model and the multiple groups and MIMIC models are shown mathematically and via an empirical demonstration. (PsycINFO Database Record

Indexed as

Factor Analysis, StatisticalModels, StatisticalData CollectionData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansPsychometrics

Identifiers

PMID27266798
PMCPMC5140785

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.