Book contents
- Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- 1 The Romance of Research Methods
- Part I Before You Dive In
- Part II Basic Design Considerations to Know, No Matter What Your Research Is About
- Part III Deep Dives on Methods and Tools for Testing Your Question of Interest
- Part IV Understanding What Your Data Are Telling You About Psychological Processes
- 20 Measurement
- 21 Advanced Psychometrics
- 22 Dealing with Repeated Measures
- 23 The Design and Analysis of Data from Dyads and Groups
- 24 Random Factors and Research Generalization
- 25 Combining Statistical and Causal Mediation Analysis
- 26 Mathematical and Computational Models
- 27 Meta-analysis
- Index
- References
21 - Advanced Psychometrics
from Part IV - Understanding What Your Data Are Telling You About Psychological Processes
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 December 2024
Book contents
- Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- 1 The Romance of Research Methods
- Part I Before You Dive In
- Part II Basic Design Considerations to Know, No Matter What Your Research Is About
- Part III Deep Dives on Methods and Tools for Testing Your Question of Interest
- Part IV Understanding What Your Data Are Telling You About Psychological Processes
- 20 Measurement
- 21 Advanced Psychometrics
- 22 Dealing with Repeated Measures
- 23 The Design and Analysis of Data from Dyads and Groups
- 24 Random Factors and Research Generalization
- 25 Combining Statistical and Causal Mediation Analysis
- 26 Mathematical and Computational Models
- 27 Meta-analysis
- Index
- References
Summary
In this chapter we review advanced psychometric methods for examining the validity of self-report measures of attitudes, beliefs, personality style, and other social psychological and personality constructs that rely on introspection. The methods include confirmatory-factor analysis to examine whether measurements can be interpreted as meaningful continua, and measurement invariance analysis to examine whether items are answered the same way in different groups of people. We illustrate the methods using a measure of individual differences in openness to political pluralism, which includes four conceptual facets. To understand how the facets relate to the overall dimension of openness to political pluralism, we compare a second-order factor model and a bifactor model. We also check to see whether the psychometric patterns of item responses are the same for males and females. These psychometric methods can both document the quality of obtained measurements and inform theorists about nuances of their constructs.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Benjamini, Y., and Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollen, K. A., and Bauldry, S. (2011). Three Cs in measurement models: Causal indicators, composite indicators, and covariates. Psychological Methods, 16(3), 265–284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Browne, M. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(1), 111–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., and Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 456–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, F. F., Sousa, K. H. and West, S. G. (2005) Teacher’s corner: Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models. Structural Equation Modeling, 12(3), 471–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, F. F., West, S. G. and Sousa, K. H. (2006) A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41(2), 189–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis, 3d ed. Routledge.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., and Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregorich, S. E. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Medical care, 44(11, Suppl. 3), S78–S94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, L. T., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed. Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
Lim, S., and Jahng, S. (2019). Determining the number of factors using parallel analysis and its recent variants. Psychological Methods, 24(4), 452–469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58(4), 525–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthén, B., and Muthén, L. (2017). Mplus. In van der Linden, W. J. (ed.) Handbook of Item Response Theory. Chapman and Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Neuberg, S. L., West, S. G., Judice, T. N., and Thompson, M. M. (1997). On dimensionality, discriminant validity, and the role of psychometric analyses in personality theory and measurement: Reply to Kruglanski et al.’s (1997) defense of the need for closure scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5), 1017–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacewicz, C. E., Hill, C. R., Lee, S., Myers, N. D., Prilleltensky, I., McMahon, A., … Brincks, A. M. (2022). Testing measurement invariance in physical education and exercise science: A tutorial using the well-being self-efficacy scale. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 26(2), 165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Revelle, W. (2021). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research (Version 2.1.9) (computer software), https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych.Google Scholar
Roets, A., and van Hiel, A. (2011). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the need for closure scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 90–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saucier, G., and Ostendorf, F. (1999). Hierarchical subcomponents of the Big Five personality factors: A cross-language replication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(4), 613–627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shrout, P. E., Mogami, M., Xu, Q., Ghodse-Elahi, Y., Mutter, E., Riccio, M. T., … Goudarzi, S. (2022). Measuring openness to political pluralism. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 10(2), 624–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., and Kuang, D. (2002). Quick and easy implementation of the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure for controlling the false positive rate in multiple comparisons. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 27(1), 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandenberg, R. J., and Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar