IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Measurement Equivalence of Ordinal Items: A Comparison of Factor Analytic, Item Response Theory, and Latent Class Approaches

Listed author(s):
  • Miloš Kankaraš


    (Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands)

  • Jeroen K. Vermunt

    (Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands)

  • Guy Moors

    (Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands)

Three distinctive methods of assessing measurement equivalence of ordinal items, namely, confirmatory factor analysis, differential item functioning using item response theory, and latent class factor analysis, make different modeling assumptions and adopt different procedures. Simulation data are used to compare the performance of these three approaches in detecting the sources of measurement inequivalence. For this purpose, the authors simulated Likert-type data using two nonlinear models, one with categorical and one with continuous latent variables. Inequivalence was set up in the slope parameters (loadings) as well as in the item intercept parameters in a form resembling agreement and extreme response styles. Results indicate that the item response theory and latent class factor models can relatively accurately detect and locate inequivalence in the intercept and slope parameters both at the scale and the item levels. Confirmatory factor analysis performs well when inequivalence is located in the slope parameters but wrongfully indicates inequivalence in the slope parameters when inequivalence is located in the intercept parameters. Influences of sample size, number of inequivalent items in a scale, and model fit criteria on the performance of the three methods are also analyzed.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by in its journal Sociological Methods & Research.

Volume (Year): 40 (2011)
Issue (Month): 2 (May)
Pages: 279-310

in new window

Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:40:y:2011:i:2:p:279-310
Contact details of provider:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:40:y:2011:i:2:p:279-310. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (SAGE Publications)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.