IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jstats/v8y2025i1p3-d1559039.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Robust Haberman Linking and Invariance Alignment

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Robitzsch

    (IPN—Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, Olshausenstraße 62, 24118 Kiel, Germany
    Centre for International Student Assessment (ZIB), Olshausenstraße 62, 24118 Kiel, Germany)

Abstract

Linking methods are widely used in the social sciences to compare group differences regarding the mean and the standard deviation of a factor variable. This article examines a comparison between robust Haberman linking (HL) and invariance alignment (IA) for factor models with dichotomous and continuous items, utilizing the L 0.5 and L 0 loss functions. A simulation study demonstrates that HL outperforms IA when item intercepts are used for linking, rather than the original HL approach, which relies on item difficulties. The results regarding the choice of loss function were mixed: L 0 showed superior performance in the simulation study with continuous items, while L 0.5 performed better in the study with dichotomous items.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Robitzsch, 2025. "Comparing Robust Haberman Linking and Invariance Alignment," Stats, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jstats:v:8:y:2025:i:1:p:3-:d:1559039
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-905X/8/1/3/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-905X/8/1/3/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robin Shealy & William Stout, 1993. "A model-based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from group ability differences and detects test bias/DTF as well as item bias/DIF," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 58(2), pages 159-194, June.
    2. R. Bock & Murray Aitkin, 1981. "Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 46(4), pages 443-459, December.
    3. Alexander Robitzsch, 2023. "Comparing Robust Linking and Regularized Estimation for Linking Two Groups in the 1PL and 2PL Models in the Presence of Sparse Uniform Differential Item Functioning," Stats, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-17, January.
    4. William Meredith, 1993. "Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 58(4), pages 525-543, December.
    5. Alexander Robitzsch, 2023. "Implementation Aspects in Invariance Alignment," Stats, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-19, October.
    6. Ioannis Tsaousis & Fathima M. Jaffari, 2023. "Identifying Bias in Social and Health Research: Measurement Invariance and Latent Mean Differences Using the Alignment Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-15, September.
    7. Gerhard Tutz & Gunther Schauberger, 2015. "A Penalty Approach to Differential Item Functioning in Rasch Models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(1), pages 21-43, March.
    8. Alexander Robitzsch, 2024. "Examining Differences of Invariance Alignment in the Mplus Software and the R Package Sirt," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, March.
    9. Valentina Sansivieri & Marie Wiberg & Mariagiulia Matteucci, 2017. "A Review of Test Equating Methods with a Special Focus on IRT-Based Approaches," Statistica, Department of Statistics, University of Bologna, vol. 77(4), pages 329-352.
    10. Peter F. Halpin, 2024. "Differential Item Functioning via Robust Scaling," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 89(3), pages 796-821, September.
    11. Paul Boeck, 2008. "Random Item IRT Models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 73(4), pages 533-559, December.
    12. Massimiliano Giacalone & Demetrio Panarello & Raffaele Mattera, 2018. "Multicollinearity in regression: an efficiency comparison between Lp-norm and least squares estimators," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1831-1859, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alexander Robitzsch, 2020. "L p Loss Functions in Invariance Alignment and Haberman Linking with Few or Many Groups," Stats, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-38, August.
    2. Alexander Robitzsch, 2024. "Extensions to Mean–Geometric Mean Linking," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, December.
    3. Alexander Robitzsch, 2024. "Bias-Reduced Haebara and Stocking–Lord Linking," J, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-12, September.
    4. Wallin, Gabriel & Chen, Yunxiao & Moustaki, Irini, 2024. "DIF analysis with unknown groups and anchor items," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121991, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Alexander Robitzsch, 2021. "A Comprehensive Simulation Study of Estimation Methods for the Rasch Model," Stats, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-23, October.
    6. Hyo Jin Eom & Nara Youn & Myoung‐Jin Lee, 2020. "Validation of Consumer Styles Inventory for consumer decision making styles," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(3), pages 836-853, September.
    7. Minjeong Jeon & Frank Rijmen & Sophia Rabe-Hesketh, 2013. "Modeling Differential Item Functioning Using a Generalization of the Multiple-Group Bifactor Model," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 38(1), pages 32-60, February.
    8. Alexander Robitzsch, 2024. "Examining Differences of Invariance Alignment in the Mplus Software and the R Package Sirt," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, March.
    9. Ke-Hai Yuan & Hongyun Liu & Yuting Han, 2021. "Differential Item Functioning Analysis Without A Priori Information on Anchor Items: QQ Plots and Graphical Test," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 86(2), pages 345-377, June.
    10. Alexander Robitzsch, 2024. "Estimation of Standard Error, Linking Error, and Total Error for Robust and Nonrobust Linking Methods in the Two-Parameter Logistic Model," Stats, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-21, June.
    11. Dylan Molenaar, 2015. "Heteroscedastic Latent Trait Models for Dichotomous Data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(3), pages 625-644, September.
    12. Paul Boeck & Sun-Joo Cho, 2021. "Not all DIF is shaped similarly," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 86(3), pages 712-716, September.
    13. Norman Rose & Matthias Davier & Benjamin Nagengast, 2017. "Modeling Omitted and Not-Reached Items in IRT Models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 795-819, September.
    14. Chen, Yunxiao & Li, Chengcheng & Ouyang, Jing & Xu, Gongjun, 2023. "DIF statistical inference without knowing anchoring items," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119923, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Siliang Zhang & Yunxiao Chen, 2022. "Computation for Latent Variable Model Estimation: A Unified Stochastic Proximal Framework," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1473-1502, December.
    16. Roger Millsap, 2007. "Invariance in Measurement and Prediction Revisited," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 72(4), pages 461-473, December.
    17. Zhang, Siliang & Chen, Yunxiao, 2022. "Computation for latent variable model estimation: a unified stochastic proximal framework," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 114489, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Jeanne A. Teresi & Chun Wang & Marjorie Kleinman & Richard N. Jones & David J. Weiss, 2021. "Differential Item Functioning Analyses of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) Measures: Methods, Challenges, Advances, and Future Directions," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 86(3), pages 674-711, September.
    19. David Hessen, 2012. "Fitting and Testing Conditional Multinormal Partial Credit Models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 77(4), pages 693-709, October.
    20. Yang Liu & Ji Seung Yang & Alberto Maydeu-Olivares, 2019. "Restricted Recalibration of Item Response Theory Models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 84(2), pages 529-553, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jstats:v:8:y:2025:i:1:p:3-:d:1559039. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.