{"title":"因子得分是否具有测量不变性?","authors":"Mark H C Lai, Winnie W-Y Tse","doi":"10.1037/met0000658","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There has been increased interest in practical methods for integrative analysis of data from multiple studies or samples, and using factor scores to represent constructs has become a popular and practical alternative to latent variable models with all individual items. Although researchers are aware that scores representing the same construct should be on a similar metric across samples-namely they should be measurement invariant-for integrative data analysis, the methodological literature is unclear whether factor scores would satisfy such a requirement. In this note, we show that even when researchers successfully calibrate the latent factors to the same metric across samples, factor scores-which are estimates of the latent factors but not the factors themselves-may not be measurement invariant. Specifically, we prove that factor scores computed based on the popular regression method are generally not measurement invariant. Surprisingly, such scores can be noninvariant even when the items are invariant. We also demonstrate that our conclusions generalize to similar shrinkage scores in item response models for discrete items, namely the expected a posteriori scores and the maximum a posteriori scores. Researchers should be cautious in directly using factor scores for cross-sample analyses, even when such scores are obtained from measurement models that account for noninvariance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20782,"journal":{"name":"Psychological methods","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are factor scores measurement invariant?\",\"authors\":\"Mark H C Lai, Winnie W-Y Tse\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/met0000658\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>There has been increased interest in practical methods for integrative analysis of data from multiple studies or samples, and using factor scores to represent constructs has become a popular and practical alternative to latent variable models with all individual items. Although researchers are aware that scores representing the same construct should be on a similar metric across samples-namely they should be measurement invariant-for integrative data analysis, the methodological literature is unclear whether factor scores would satisfy such a requirement. In this note, we show that even when researchers successfully calibrate the latent factors to the same metric across samples, factor scores-which are estimates of the latent factors but not the factors themselves-may not be measurement invariant. Specifically, we prove that factor scores computed based on the popular regression method are generally not measurement invariant. Surprisingly, such scores can be noninvariant even when the items are invariant. We also demonstrate that our conclusions generalize to similar shrinkage scores in item response models for discrete items, namely the expected a posteriori scores and the maximum a posteriori scores. Researchers should be cautious in directly using factor scores for cross-sample analyses, even when such scores are obtained from measurement models that account for noninvariance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological methods\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000658\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000658","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
人们越来越关注对来自多个研究或样本的数据进行综合分析的实用方法,而使用因子得分来代表构念已成为一种流行而实用的方法,可以替代包含所有单个项目的潜变量模型。尽管研究人员意识到,代表同一构念的分数在不同样本中应具有相似的度量标准--即它们应具有测量不变性--以进行整合数据分析,但方法论文献并不清楚因子分数是否能满足这一要求。在本论文中,我们将证明,即使研究人员成功地将潜在因子校准到不同样本的相同尺度上,因子得分--即潜在因子的估计值而非因子本身--也可能不具有测量不变性。具体来说,我们证明了根据流行的回归方法计算出的因子得分通常不具有测量不变性。令人惊讶的是,即使项目是不变的,这些分数也可能是非不变的。我们还证明,我们的结论也适用于离散项目的项目反应模型中的类似收缩分数,即预期后验分数和最大后验分数。研究人员在直接使用因子得分进行跨样本分析时应该谨慎,即使这些得分是从考虑了非方差的测量模型中获得的。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
There has been increased interest in practical methods for integrative analysis of data from multiple studies or samples, and using factor scores to represent constructs has become a popular and practical alternative to latent variable models with all individual items. Although researchers are aware that scores representing the same construct should be on a similar metric across samples-namely they should be measurement invariant-for integrative data analysis, the methodological literature is unclear whether factor scores would satisfy such a requirement. In this note, we show that even when researchers successfully calibrate the latent factors to the same metric across samples, factor scores-which are estimates of the latent factors but not the factors themselves-may not be measurement invariant. Specifically, we prove that factor scores computed based on the popular regression method are generally not measurement invariant. Surprisingly, such scores can be noninvariant even when the items are invariant. We also demonstrate that our conclusions generalize to similar shrinkage scores in item response models for discrete items, namely the expected a posteriori scores and the maximum a posteriori scores. Researchers should be cautious in directly using factor scores for cross-sample analyses, even when such scores are obtained from measurement models that account for noninvariance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
Psychological Methods is devoted to the development and dissemination of methods for collecting, analyzing, understanding, and interpreting psychological data. Its purpose is the dissemination of innovations in research design, measurement, methodology, and quantitative and qualitative analysis to the psychological community; its further purpose is to promote effective communication about related substantive and methodological issues. The audience is expected to be diverse and to include those who develop new procedures, those who are responsible for undergraduate and graduate training in design, measurement, and statistics, as well as those who employ those procedures in research.