2016
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-40643-5_20
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multi-group Invariance Testing: An Illustrative Comparison of PLS Permutation and Covariance-Based SEM Invariance Analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
35
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(44 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
35
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Finally, we showed how the network comparison test can be used to compare network models across samples (Van Borkulo et al, ). This approach is similar to item response theory Differential Item Function (DIF) testing (Hambleton and Jones, ; Embretson and Yang, ) or invariance testing in structural equation modeling (Marsh, Morin, Parker, & Kaur, ; Chin, Mills, Steel, & Schwarz, ). We found, in these data, that the structure, but not global strength, varied across clinical versus nonclinical samples, meaning that there were different maintaining symptoms and interactions between symptoms based on the type of sample.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, we showed how the network comparison test can be used to compare network models across samples (Van Borkulo et al, ). This approach is similar to item response theory Differential Item Function (DIF) testing (Hambleton and Jones, ; Embretson and Yang, ) or invariance testing in structural equation modeling (Marsh, Morin, Parker, & Kaur, ; Chin, Mills, Steel, & Schwarz, ). We found, in these data, that the structure, but not global strength, varied across clinical versus nonclinical samples, meaning that there were different maintaining symptoms and interactions between symptoms based on the type of sample.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In establishing convergent validity, a threshold of acceptability of greater than 0.5 was ensured for the value of AVE. (China et al, 2012;Hair et al, 2016;Rasoolimanesh et al, 2017). Findings presented in Column 4 of Table 1 indicate that all AVE values met the requirements for the construct measures' convergent validity, which is above the acceptability value.…”
Section: Model Assessment Utilizing Pls-semmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…Measurement invariance, which is also known as measurement equivalence, is a crucial step in cross-group investigation (Ruzzier et al, 2014). This technique enables researchers to identify whether parameters of the structural model and measurement model are equivalent (i.e., invariance) across two or more groups (China et al, 2012). Measurement invariance is needed to be sure that the differences are not attributable to measurement model differences across the groups (Kock, 2017).…”
Section: Measurement Invariance and Multi-group Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To overcome the ns Note: t1: ratings prior to sports event, t2: ratings following sports event, ** p≤.05, * p≤.07 (marginal path significance) Table 6. Results of Multi-Group Analysis limitation regarding different sample sizes for both groups, the researchers checked the measurements' invariance to address any problems raised in further analysis (Chin et al, 2012). A multi-group simultaneous path analysis was conducted to determine whether the path coefficients for the relationships between sponsor brand awareness, image, perceived quality, brand relationship satisfaction, brand commitment, and brand loyalty were equal across the two groups.…”
Section: Hypothesis Tests Through Multi-group Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%