Against the Mainstream: On the Limitations of Non-Invariance Diagnostics: Response to Fischer et al. and Meuleman et al.
Research output: Journal contributions › Comments / Debate / Reports › Research
Standard
In: Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 52, No. 3, 08.2023, p. 1438-1455.
Research output: Journal contributions › Comments / Debate / Reports › Research
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Against the Mainstream
T2 - On the Limitations of Non-Invariance Diagnostics: Response to Fischer et al. and Meuleman et al.
AU - Welzel, Christian
AU - Kruse, Stefan
AU - Brunkert, Lennart
PY - 2023/8
Y1 - 2023/8
N2 - Our original 2021 SMR article “Non-Invariance? An Overstated Problem with Misconceived Causes” disputes the conclusiveness of non-invariance diagnostics in diverse cross-cultural settings. Our critique targets the increasingly fashionable use of Multi-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA), especially in its mainstream version. We document—both by mathematical proof and an empirical illustration—that non-invariance is an arithmetic artifact of group mean disparity on closed-ended scales. Precisely this arti-factualness renders standard non-invariance markers inconclusive of measurement inequivalence under group-mean diversity. Using the Emancipative Values Index (EVI), OA-Section 3 of our original article demonstrates that such artifactual non-invariance is inconsequential for multi-item constructs’ cross-cultural performance in nomological terms, that is, explanatory power and predictive quality. Given these limitations of standard non-invariance diagnostics, we challenge the unquestioned authority of invariance tests as a tool of measurement validation. Our critique provoked two teams of authors to launch counter-critiques. We are grateful to the two comments because they give us a welcome opportunity to restate our position in greater clarity. Before addressing the comments one by one, we reformulate our key propositions more succinctly.
AB - Our original 2021 SMR article “Non-Invariance? An Overstated Problem with Misconceived Causes” disputes the conclusiveness of non-invariance diagnostics in diverse cross-cultural settings. Our critique targets the increasingly fashionable use of Multi-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA), especially in its mainstream version. We document—both by mathematical proof and an empirical illustration—that non-invariance is an arithmetic artifact of group mean disparity on closed-ended scales. Precisely this arti-factualness renders standard non-invariance markers inconclusive of measurement inequivalence under group-mean diversity. Using the Emancipative Values Index (EVI), OA-Section 3 of our original article demonstrates that such artifactual non-invariance is inconsequential for multi-item constructs’ cross-cultural performance in nomological terms, that is, explanatory power and predictive quality. Given these limitations of standard non-invariance diagnostics, we challenge the unquestioned authority of invariance tests as a tool of measurement validation. Our critique provoked two teams of authors to launch counter-critiques. We are grateful to the two comments because they give us a welcome opportunity to restate our position in greater clarity. Before addressing the comments one by one, we reformulate our key propositions more succinctly.
KW - compositional Substitutability
KW - emancipative Values
KW - measurement Equivalence
KW - nomological Performance
KW - Non-Invariance
KW - Politics
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85129148316&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/e8c7419c-3c1a-3afb-bf8d-0816cb11aa8b/
U2 - 10.1177/00491241221091754
DO - 10.1177/00491241221091754
M3 - Comments / Debate / Reports
AN - SCOPUS:85129148316
VL - 52
SP - 1438
EP - 1455
JO - Sociological Methods and Research
JF - Sociological Methods and Research
SN - 0049-1241
IS - 3
ER -