Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:20:48.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factorial Invariance in a Repeated Measures Design: An Application to the Study of Person-Organization Fit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Carmen Ximénez  and
Javier Revuelta
Carmen Ximénez*
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain)
Javier Revuelta
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be adressed to Carmen Ximénez. Universidad Autonoma de Madrid. Departamento de Psicologia Social y Metodologia. Cantoblanco s/n. 28049 Madrid. (Spain). E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An important methodological concern of any research based on a person-environment (P-E) fit approach is the operationalization of the fit, which imposes some measurement requirements that are rarely empirically tested with statistical methods. Among them, the assessment of the P and E components along commensurate dimensions is possibly the most cited one. This paper proposes to test the equivalence across the P and E measures by analyzing the measurement invariance of a multi-group confirmatory factor analysis model. From a methodological point of view, the distinct aspect of this approach within the context of P-E fit research is that measurement invariance is assessed in a repeated measures design. An example illustrating the procedure in a person-organization (P-O) fit dataset is provided. Measurement invariance was tested at five different hierarchical levels: (1) configural, (2) first-order factor loadings, (3) second-order factor loadings, (4) residual variances of observed variables, and (5) disturbances of first-order factors. The results supported the measurement invariance across the P and O measures at the third level. The implications of these findings for P-E fit studies are discussed.

Un importante aspecto metodológico de las investigaciones basadas en el enfoque del ajuste persona-ambiente (P-A) se refiere a la operacionalización del ajuste P-A, que impone una serie de supuestos que raramente se evalúan utilizando métodos estadísticos. Entre ellos, la evaluación de los componentes P y A en dimensiones conmensurables o equivalentes, es posiblemente uno de los más citados. En este artículo se propone que la equivalencia entre las medidas de P y A puede evaluarse mediante el análisis de la invarianza factorial de un modelo de análisis factorial confirmatorio multi-grupo. Desde un punto de vista metodológico, la aportación del enfoque propuesto a la investigación del ajuste P-A es que la invarianza en la medida se evalúa en un diseño de medidas repetidas. El artículo también presenta un ejemplo que ilustra el procedimiento propuesto con datos para una medida de ajuste persona-organización (P-O). La invarianza en la medida se evalúa en cinco niveles jerárquicos: (1) configural, (2) saturaciones de primer orden, (3) saturaciones de segundo orden, (4) varianzas error de las variables observadas y (5) errores típicos asociados a los factores de primer orden. Los resultados dan apoyo a la invarianza factorial en las medidas de P y O en el tercer nivel. Por último, se discuten las implicaciones del enfoque propuesto para los estudios de ajuste P-A.

Keywords

measurement invarianceconfirmatory factor analysisperson-organization fitcommensurability analysisinvarianza en la medidaanálisis factorial confirmatorioajuste persona-organizaciónanálisis de la conmensurabilidad
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , May 2010 , pp. 485 - 493
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos 7.0 user's guide. Spring House, PA: Amos Development Corporation.Google Scholar
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.Google Scholar
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.Google Scholar
Borgen, F. H., Weiss, D. J., Tinsley, H. E. A., Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1972). Occupational reinforcer patterns. Minneapolis, MN: Vocational Psychology Research, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Browne, M. W. (1984). Asymptotically distribution-free methods in the analysis of covariance structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 62–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen, K. A. & Long, J. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Caplan, R. D. (1987). Person-environment theory and organizations: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 248–267.Google Scholar
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indices to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504.Google Scholar
Chen, F. F., Sousa, K., & West, S. G. (2005). Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 471–492.Google Scholar
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In Cooper, CLRIT (Ed.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 283–357). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 51–100.Google Scholar
Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9, 466–491.Google Scholar
Gay, E.G., Weiss, D. J., Hendel, D. D., Dawis, R.V., & Lofquist, L.H. (1971). Manual for the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, 28.Google Scholar
Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices. 2nd edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1981). LISREL: Analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood (version V). Chicago: National Educational Resources, Inc.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User's reference guide. 2nd ed. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals' fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pervin, L. A., & Lewis, M. (1978). Perspectives in interactional psychology. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Raju, N. S., Laffittee, L. J., & Byrne, B. M. (2002). Measurement equivalence: A comparison of methods based on confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 517–529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 552–566.Google Scholar
Rounds, J. B., Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1987). Measurement of person-environment fit and prediction of satisfaction in the theory of work adjustment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 297–318.Google Scholar
Schneider, B. (2001). Fits about fit. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 141–152.Google Scholar
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180.Google Scholar
Tinsley, H. E. A. (2000). The congruence myth: An analysis of the efficacy of the person-environment fit model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 147–179.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, 2, 4–69.Google Scholar
Widaman, K. F., & Reise, S. (1997). Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: Applications in the substance use domain. In Bryant, K. J., Windle, M., & West, S. E. (Eds.), The science of prevention: Methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research (pp. 281–324). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar