2020
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-47515-4_8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Analysing PIAAC Data with Structural Equation Modelling in Mplus

Abstract: Structural equation modelling (SEM) has become one of the most prominent approaches to testing substantive theories about the relations among observed and/or unobserved variables. Applying this multivariate procedure, researchers are faced with several methodological decisions, including the treatment of indicator variables (e.g. categorical vs. continuous treatment), the handling of missing data, and the selection of an appropriate level of analysis. The PIAAC data pose additional issues, such as the clusteri… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 73 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This finding was unusual because CFI and RMSEA normally are equally sensitive to different factor loadings across groups [57]. Above all, with regard to the influence of the type of factor models or the types of invariance models being compared, the cut-offs for maximum change in model fit in invariance testing should not be considered as strict rules [77]. Therefore, multigroup analyses rather speak for measurement invariance across the age groups included in this study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…This finding was unusual because CFI and RMSEA normally are equally sensitive to different factor loadings across groups [57]. Above all, with regard to the influence of the type of factor models or the types of invariance models being compared, the cut-offs for maximum change in model fit in invariance testing should not be considered as strict rules [77]. Therefore, multigroup analyses rather speak for measurement invariance across the age groups included in this study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…So we conducted a three-level multilevel analysis to examine how student and school-related variables predict student achievement in reading, math and science, controlling for variation due to the countries in question. More precisely, we followed the suggestions for handling large-scale assessment data with a large number of countries made by Muth en and Asparouhov (2018) and Scherer (2020), and thus treated countries as random with schools nested within countries and students nested in schools. However, several issues need to be considered when analyzing complex surveys (Lorah, 2018).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We handled PVs by writing out ten data sets – one for each PV – and combined these data sets in Mplus using the IMPUTATION function. Thus, analyses are conducted for each set of PVs and combined automatically afterward in Mplus (Scherer, 2020). Scholars also recommend the use of sample weights due to the unequal probability of selection (Lorah, 2018), but it is largely unclear which weights should be used and how to achieve robust results (Laukaityte and Wiberg, 2018).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This study adopted the Multilevel Confirmatory Factor Analysis approach for the measurement invariance examination, which is recommended when the number of groups is large (Kim et al, 2017;Jak, 2018;Scherer, 2020). Especially when the number of groups is larger than 50 (we have 63 countries in this study), the Multilevel Confirmatory…”
Section: S1: Supplemental: Detailed Methodology For Testing Measureme...mentioning
confidence: 99%