Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34866708›Full record

ArticleApplied psychological measurement2021

Partial Measurement Invariance: Extending and Evaluating the Cluster Approach for Identifying Anchor Items.

Steffi Pohl, Daniel Schulze, Eric Stets

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied psychological measurement, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

3 authors.

Steffi PohlFreie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5178-8171
Daniel SchulzeFreie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Eric StetsFreie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When measurement invariance does not hold, researchers aim for partial measurement invariance by identifying anchor items that are assumed to be measurement invariant. In this paper, we build on Bechger and Maris's approach for identification of anchor items. Instead of identifying differential item functioning (DIF)-free items, they propose to identify different sets of items that are invariant in item parameters within the same item set. We extend their approach by an additional step in order to allow for identification of homogeneously functioning item sets. We evaluate the performance of the extended cluster approach under various conditions and compare its performance to that of previous approaches, that are the equal-mean difficulty (EMD) approach and the iterative forward approach. We show that the EMD and the iterative forward approaches perform well in conditions with balanced DIF or when DIF is small. In conditions with large and unbalanced DIF, they fail to recover the true group mean differences. With appropriate threshold settings, the cluster approach identified a cluster that resulted in unbiased mean difference estimates in all conditions. Compared to previous approaches, the cluster approach allows for a variety of different assumptions as well as for depicting the uncertainty in the results that stem from the choice of the assumption. Using a real data set, we illustrate how the assumptions of the previous approaches may be incorporated in the cluster approach and how the chosen assumption impacts the results.

Indexed as

anchor itemscluster analysisdifferential item functioningmeasurement invariancescale indeterminacy

Identifiers

PMID34866708
PMCPMC8640350

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.