A Causal Framework for the Comparability of Latent Variables

References

• Anderson, C. J., & Böckenholt, U. (2000). Graphical regression models for polytomous variables. Psychometrika, 65, 497–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296340
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2014). Multiple-group factor analysis alignment. Structural Equation Modeling, 21, 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.919210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aust, F., & Barth, M. (2020). Papaja: Create APA manuscripts with R Markdown. https://github.com/crsh/papaja
   Google Scholar
• Bago, B., Kovacs, M., Protzko, J., Nagy, T., Kekecs, Z., Palfi, B., Adamkovic, M., Adamus, S., Albalooshi, S., Albayrak-Aydemir, N., Alfian, I. N., Alper, S., Alvarez-Solas, S., Alves, S. G., Amaya, S., Andresen, P. K., Anjum, G., Ansari, D., Arriaga, P., … Aczel, B. (2022). Situational factors shape moral judgements in the trolley dilemma in Eastern, Southern and Western countries in a culturally diverse sample. Nature Human Behaviour, 6, 880–895. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01319-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartolucci, F., & Forcina, A. (2005). Likelihood inference on the underlying structure of IRT models. Psychometrika, 70, 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-001-0934-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bastian, B., Kuppens, P., De Roover, K., & Diener, E. (2014). Is valuing positive emotion associated with life satisfaction? Emotion, 14, 639–645. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036466
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, D. J. (2017). A more general model for testing measurement invariance and differential item functioning. Psychological Methods, 22, 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000077
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, D. J., Belzak, W. C. M., & Cole, V. T. (2020). Simplifying the assessment of measurement invariance over multiple background variables: Using regularized moderated nonlinear factor analysis to detect differential item functioning. Structural Equation Modeling, 27, 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1642754
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, D. J., & Hussong, A. M. (2009). Psychometric approaches for developing commensurate measures across independent studies: Traditional and new models. Psychological Methods, 14, 101–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015583
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belzak, W. C. M., & Bauer, D. J. (2020). Improving the assessment of measurement invariance: Using regularization to select anchor items and identify differential item functioning. Psychological Methods, 25, 673–690. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000253
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boker, S., Neale, M., Maes, H., Wilde, M., Spiegel, M., Brick, T., Spies, J., Estabrook, R., Kenny, S., Bates, T., Mehta, P., & Fox, J. (2011). OpenMx: An open source extended structural equation modeling framework. Psychometrika, 76, 306–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-010-9200-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Bollen, K. A., & Pearl, J. (2013). Eight myths about causality and structural equation models. In S. L. Morgan (Ed.), Handbook of causal analysis for social research (pp. 301–328). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6094-3_15
   Google Scholar
• Borsboom, D. (2023). Psychological constructs as organizing principles. In L. A. van der Ark, W. H. M. Emons, & R. R. Meijer (Eds.), Essays on contemporary psychometrics (pp. 89–108). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10370-4_5
   Google Scholar
• Borsboom, D., Deserno, M. K., Rhemtulla, M., Epskamp, S., Fried, E. I., McNally, R. J., Robinaugh, D. J., Perugini, M., Dalege, J., Costantini, G., Isvoranu, A.-M., Wysocki, A. C., Borkulo, C. D., Van, Van Bork, R., & Waldorp, L. J. (2021). Network analysis of multivariate data in psychological science. Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 1, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-021-00055-w
   Google Scholar
• Brandmaier, A. M., Oertzen, T. v., McArdle, J. J., & Lindenberger, U. (2013). Structural equation model trees. Psychological Methods, 18, 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Urso, E. D., Tijmstra, J., Vermunt, J. K., & De Roover, K. (2023). Does acquiescence disagree with measurement invariance testing? Structural Equation Modeling, 0, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2023.2260106
   Google Scholar
• De Roover, K., Vermunt, J. K., & Ceulemans, E. (2022). Mixture multigroup factor analysis for unraveling factor loading noninvariance across many groups. Psychological Methods, 27, 281–306. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000355
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deffner, D., Rohrer, J. M., & McElreath, R. (2022). A causal framework for cross-cultural generalizability. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 5. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459221106366
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Elwert, F. (2013). Graphical causal models. In S. L. Morgan (Ed.), Handbook of causal analysis for social research (pp. 245–273). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6094-3_13
   Google Scholar
• Epskamp, S. (2015). semPlot: Unified visualizations of structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 22, 474–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.937847
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goretzko, D., Siemund, K., & Sterner, P. (2023). Evaluating model fit of measurement models in confirmatory factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 84, 123–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644231163813
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenland, S., & Brumback, B. (2002). An overview of relations among causal modelling methods. International Journal of Epidemiology, 31, 1030–1037. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/31.5.1030
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagenaars, J. A. (1998). Categorical causal modeling: Latent class analysis and directed log-linear models with latent variables. Sociological Methods & Research, 26, 436–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124198026004002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoekstra, R. H. A., Epskamp, S., Nierenberg, A., Borsboom, D., & McNally, R. J. (2023). Testing similarity in longitudinal networks. The Individual Network Invariance Test. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ugs2r
   Google Scholar
• Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (2012). Differential item functioning. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• House, B. R., Kanngiesser, P., Barrett, H. C., Broesch, T., Cebioglu, S., Crittenden, A. N., Erut, A., Lew-Levy, S., Sebastian-Enesco, C., Smith, A. M., Yilmaz, S., & Silk, J. B. (2020). Universal norm psychology leads to societal diversity in prosocial behaviour and development. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0734-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humphreys, K., & Titterington, D. M. (2003). Variational approximations for categorical causal modeling with latent variables. Psychometrika, 68, 391–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294734
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jöreskog, K. G. (1967). Some contributions to maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 32, 443–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289658
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36, 409–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291366
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorgensen, T. D., Pornprasertmanit, S., Schoemann, A. M., Rosseel, Y., Miller, P., Quick, C., Garnier-Villarreal, M., Selig, J., Boulton, A., Preacher, K., et al. (2016). Package “semtools.” https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/semtools/semtools.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Kahane, G., Everett, J. A. C., Earp, B. D., Caviola, L., Faber, N. S., Crockett, M. J., & Savulescu, J. (2018). Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychological Review, 125, 131–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000093
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, E., Cao, C., Wang, Y., & Nguyen, D. (2017). Measurement invariance testing with many groups: A comparison of five approaches. Structural Equation Modeling, 24, 524–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1304822
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolbe, L., Molenaar, D., Jak, S., & Jorgensen, T. D. (2022). Assessing measurement invariance with moderated nonlinear factor analysis using the R package OpenMx. Psychological Methods, https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000501
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopf, J., Zeileis, A., & Strobl, C. (2015). Anchor selection strategies for DIF analysis: Review, assessment, and new approaches. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 75, 22–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164414529792
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreiner, S., & Christensen, K. B. (2002). Graphical Rasch models. In M. Mesbah, B. F. Cole, & M.-L. T. Lee (Eds.), Statistical methods for quality of life studies: Design, measurements and analysis (pp. 187–203). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3625-0_15
   Google Scholar
• Kreiner, S., & Christensen, K. B. (2011). Item screening in graphical Loglinear Rasch models. Psychometrika, 76, 228–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-011-9203-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunicki, Z. J., Smith, M. L., & Murray, E. J. (2023). A primer on structural equation model diagrams and directed acyclic graphs: When and how to use each in psychological and epidemiological research. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231156085
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lechner, C. M., Partsch, M. V., Danner, D., & Rammstedt, B. (2019). Individual, situational, and cultural correlates of acquiescent responding: Towards a unified conceptual framework. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 72, 426–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12164
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leitgöb, H., Seddig, D., Asparouhov, T., Behr, D., Davidov, E., De Roover, K., Jak, S., Meitinger, K., Menold, N., Muthén, B. O., Rudnev, M., Schmidt, P., & Schoot, R. v d (2023). Measurement invariance in the social sciences: Historical development, methodological challenges, state of the art, and future perspectives. Social Science Research, 110, 102805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2022.102805
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. IAP.
   Google Scholar
• Luong, R., & Flake, J. K. (2023). Measurement invariance testing using confirmatory factor analysis and alignment optimization: A tutorial for transparent analysis planning and reporting. Psychological Methods, 28, 905–924. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000441
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maassen, E., D'Urso, E. D., van Assen, M. A. L. M., Nuijten, M. B., De Roover, K., & Wicherts, J. M. (2023). The dire disregard of measurement invariance testing in psychological science. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000624
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellenbergh, G. J. (1989). Item bias and item response theory. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 127–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90002-5
   Google Scholar
• Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294825
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meuleman, B., Żółtak, T., Pokropek, A., Davidov, E., Muthén, B., Oberski, D. L., Billiet, J., & Schmidt, P. (2022). Why measurement invariance is important in comparative research. A response to Welzel et al. (2021). Sociological Methods & Research, 52, 1401–1419. https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241221091755
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulaik, S. A. (2009). Linear causal modeling with structural equations. CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mulaik, S. A. (2010). Foundations of factor analysis. CRC press.
   Google Scholar
• Muthén, B. O. (1989). Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations. Psychometrika, 54, 557–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296397
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearl, J. (1988). Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar
• Pearl, J. (1998). Graphs, causality, and structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 27, 226–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124198027002004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearl, J. (2012). The causal foundations of structural equation modeling. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA557445
   Google Scholar
• Pearl, J., & Bareinboim, E. (2014). External validity: From do-calculus to transportability across populations. Statistical Science, 29, 579–595. https://doi.org/10.1214/14-STS486
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pohl, S., Schulze, D., & Stets, E. (2021). Partial measurement invariance: Extending and evaluating the cluster approach for identifying anchor items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 45, 477–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216211042809
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 1–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Core Team, R. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Rijmen, F., Vansteelandt, K., & De Boeck, P. (2008). Latent class models for diary method data: Parameter estimation by local computations. Psychometrika, 73, 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-007-9001-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohrer, J. M. (2018). Thinking Clearly about correlations and causation: graphical causal models for observational data. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917745629
   Google Scholar
• Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudnev, M. (2019). Alignment method for measurement invariance: Tutorial. In Elements of cross-cultural research. https://maksimrudnev.com/2019/05/01/alignment-tutorial/
   Google Scholar
• Rutkowski, L., & Svetina, D. (2014). Assessing the hypothesis of measurement invariance in the context of large-scale international surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74, 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413498257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sass, D. A. (2011). Testing measurement invariance and comparing latent factor means within a confirmatory factor analysis framework. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 347–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406661
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulze, D., & Pohl, S. (2021). Finding clusters of measurement invariant items for continuous covariates. Structural Equation Modeling, 28, 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1771186
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seifert, I. S., Rohrer, J. M., & Schmukle, S. C. (2024). Using within-person change in three large panel studies to estimate personality age trajectories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 126, 150–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000482
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78–107. https://doi.org/10.1086/209528
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterner, P., & Goretzko, D. (2023). Exploratory factor analysis trees: Evaluating measurement invariance between multiple covariates. Structural Equation Modeling, 30, 871–886. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2023.2188573
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strobl, C., Kopf, J., & Zeileis, A. (2015). Rasch trees: A new method for detecting differential item functioning in the Rasch model. Psychometrika, 80, 289–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-013-9388-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suzuki, E., Shinozaki, T., & Yamamoto, E. (2020). Causal diagrams: Pitfalls and tips. Journal of Epidemiology, 30, 153–162. https://doi.org/10.2188/jea.JE20190192
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tutz, G., & Schauberger, G. (2015). A penalty approach to differential item functioning in Rasch models. Psychometrika, 80, 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-013-9377-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Bork, R., Rhemtulla, M., Sijtsma, K., & Borsboom, D. (2022). A causal theory of error scores. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000521
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van De Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 486–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.686740
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westfall, J., & Yarkoni, T. (2016). Statistically controlling for confounding constructs is harder than you think. PloS One, 11, e0152719. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152719
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wysocki, A. C., Lawson, K. M., & Rhemtulla, M. (2022). Statistical control requires causal justification. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 5. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459221095823
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Three generations of DIF analyses: Considering where it has been, where it is now, and where it is going. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4, 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300701375832
   Google Scholar