Abstract

Confirmatory factor analytic tests of measurement invariance (MI) based on the chi-square statistic are known to be highly sensitive to sample size. For this reason, G. W. Cheung and R. B. Rensvold (2002) recommended using alternative fit indices (AFIs) in MI investigations. In this article, the authors investigated the performance of AFIs with simulated data known to not be invariant. The results indicate that AFIs are much less sensitive to sample size and are more sensitive to a lack of invariance than chi-square-based tests of MI. The authors suggest reporting differences in comparative fit index (CFI) and R. P. McDonald's (1989) noncentrality index (NCI) to evaluate whether MI exists. Although a general value of change in CFI (.002) seemed to perform well in the analyses, condition specific change in McDonald's NCI values exhibited better performance than a single change in McDonald's NCI value. Tables of these values are provided as are recommendations for best practices in MI testing.

Keywords

Measurement invarianceStatisticStatisticsConfirmatory factor analysisSample size determinationPsychologyChi-square testIndex (typography)MathematicsInvariant (physics)EconometricsValue (mathematics)Structural equation modelingComputer science

Affiliated Institutions

Related Publications

Fit Indices Versus Test Statistics

Model evaluation is one of the most important aspects of structural equation modeling (SEM). Many model fit indices have been developed. It is not an exaggeration to say that ne...

2005 Multivariate Behavioral Research 409 citations

Publication Info

Year
2008
Type
article
Volume
93
Issue
3
Pages
568-592
Citations
1601
Access
Closed

External Links

Social Impact

Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions

Citation Metrics

1601
OpenAlex

Cite This

Adam W. Meade, Emily Johnson, Phillip W. Braddy (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance.. Journal of Applied Psychology , 93 (3) , 568-592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568

Identifiers

DOI
10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568