IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v13y2023i4p21582440231205354.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining Appropriacy of CFI and TLI Cutoff Value in Multiple-Group CFA Test of Measurement Invariance to Enhance Accuracy of Test Score Interpretation

Author

Listed:
  • Abdolvahab Khademi
  • Craig S. Wells
  • Maria Elena Oliveri
  • Ester Villalonga-Olives

Abstract

The most common effect size when using a multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis approach to measurement invariance is ΔCFI and ΔTLI with a cutoff value of 0.01. However, this recommended cutoff value may not be ubiquitously appropriate and may be of limited application for some tests (e.g., measures using dichotomous items or different estimation methods, sample sizes, or model complexity). Moreover, prior cutoff value estimations often have ignored consequences resulting in using measures that more accurately estimate countries’ or learners’ proficiency for some countries or groups versus others. In this study, we investigate whether the cutoff value proposed by Cheung and Rensvold (ΔCFI or ΔTLI > 0.01) is appropriate across educational measurement contexts. Specifically, we investigated the performance of ΔCFI and ΔTLI in capturing LOI at the scalar level in dichotomous items within item response theory on groups whose test characteristic curves differed by 0.5. Simulation results showed that the proposed cutoff value of 0.01 in ΔCFI and ΔTLI was not appropriate to capture LOI under the study conditions, which may result in the misinterpretation of test results or inaccurate inferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Abdolvahab Khademi & Craig S. Wells & Maria Elena Oliveri & Ester Villalonga-Olives, 2023. "Examining Appropriacy of CFI and TLI Cutoff Value in Multiple-Group CFA Test of Measurement Invariance to Enhance Accuracy of Test Score Interpretation," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:13:y:2023:i:4:p:21582440231205354
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440231205354
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440231205354
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440231205354?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:sae:sagope:v:13:y:2023:i:4:p:21582440231205354. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.