Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2017 (2017), Article ID 7596101, 12 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7596101
Research Article

The Effect of Small Sample Size on Measurement Equivalence of Psychometric Questionnaires in MIMIC Model: A Simulation Study

Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

Correspondence should be addressed to Seyyed Mohammad Taghi Ayatollahi; ri.ca.smus@mihalotaya

Received 7 March 2017; Accepted 21 May 2017; Published 20 June 2017

Academic Editor: Momiao Xiong

Copyright © 2017 Jamshid Jamali et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. J. Jamali, S. M. T. Ayatollahi, and P. Jafari, “A new measurement equivalence technique based on latent class regression as compared with multiple indicators multiple causes,” Acta Informatica Medica, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 168–171, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. P. Jafari, E. Allahyari, M. Salarzadeh, and Z. Bagheri, “Item-level informant discrepancies across obese–overweight children and their parents on the PedsQL™ 4.0 instrument: an iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression,” Quality of Life Research, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 25–33, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. E. Allahyari, P. Jafari, and Z. Bagheri, “A Simulation Study to Assess the Effect of the Number of Response Categories on the Power of Ordinal Logistic Regression for Differential Item Functioning Analysis in Rating Scales,” Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, vol. 2016, Article ID 5080826, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. C. M. Woods, “Evaluation of MIMIC-model methods for DIF testing with comparison to two-group analysis,” Multivariate Behavioral Research, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 1–27, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. J. A. Teresi, “Different approaches to differential item functioning in health applications: advantages, disadvantages and some neglected topics,” Medical Care, vol. 44, Supplement 3, no. 11, pp. S152–S170, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. C. Qi, B. C. Kelly, Y. Liao et al., “A Multiple Indicators Multiple Causes (MIMIC) model of internal barriers to drug treatment in China,” Drug and Alcohol Dependence, vol. 148, pp. 143–149, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. G.-H. Dong, Z. Qian, Q. Fu et al., “A multiple indicators multiple cause (MIMIC) model of respiratory health and household factors in chinese children: the seven northeastern cities (SNEC) study,” Maternal and Child Health Journal, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 129–137, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. P. Proitsi, G. Hamilton, M. Tsolaki et al., “A Multiple indicators multiple causes (MIMIC) model of behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia (BPSD),” Neurobiology of Aging, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 434–442, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. H. Finch, “The MIMIC model as a method for detecting DIF: comparison with Mantel-Haenszel, SIBTEST, and the IRT likelihood ratio,” Applied Psychological Measurement, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 278–295, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  10. C.-L. Shih and W.-C. Wang, “Differential item functioning detection using the multiple indicators, multiple causes method with a pure short anchor,” Applied Psychological Measurement, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 184–199, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  11. W.-C. Wang and C.-L. Shih, “MIMIC methods for assessing differential item functioning in polytomous items,” Applied Psychological Measurement, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 166–180, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. W.-C. Wang, C.-L. Shih, and C.-C. Yang, “The MIMIC method with scale purification for detecting differential item functioning,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 713–731, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  13. W. H. Finch and B. F. French, “Estimation of MIMIC model parameters with multilevel data,” Structural Equation Modeling, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 229–252, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  14. I. A. Carroll, MIMIC DIF Testing When the Latent Variable Variance Differs Between Groups, University of Kansas, Kansas, Kan, USA, 2014.
  15. C. M. Woods and K. J. Grimm, “Testing for nonuniform differential item functioning with multiple indicator multiple cause models,” Applied Psychological Measurement, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 339–361, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. S. Chun, S. Stark, E. S. Kim, and O. S. Chernyshenko, “MIMIC Methods for Detecting DIF Among Multiple Groups: Exploring a New Sequential-Free Baseline Procedure,” Applied Psychological Measurement, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 486–499, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. E. S. Kim and C. Cao, “Testing Group Mean Differences of Latent Variables in Multilevel Data Using Multiple-Group Multilevel CFA and Multilevel MIMIC Modeling,” Multivariate Behavioral Research, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 436–456, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. B. K. Nayak, “Understanding the relevance of sample size calculation,” Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 469-470, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. E. Kristjansson, R. Aylesworth, I. McDowell, and B. D. Zumbo, “A comparison of four methods for detecting differential item functioning in ordered response items,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 65, no. 6, pp. 935–953, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  20. Y. Kaya, W. L. Leite, and M. D. Miller, “A comparison of logistic regression models for DIF detection in polytomous items: the effect of small sample sizes and non-normality of ability distributions,” in Proceedings of the International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, vol. 2, pp. 22–39, 2015.
  21. C. M. Woods, T. F. Oltmanns, and E. Turkheimer, “Illustration of MIMIC-model DIF testing with the schedule for nonadaptive and adaptive personality,” Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 320–330, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. S. Golia, “Assessing the impact of uniform and nonuniform differential item functioning items on Rasch measure: the polytomous case,” Computational Statistics, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 441–461, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  23. S. Lee, O. Bulut, and Y. Suh, “Multidimensional extension of multiple indicators multiple causes models to detect DIF,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  24. F. Samejima, “Graded response model,” in Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory, 100, p. 85, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  25. N. W. Scott, P. M. Fayers, N. K. Aaronson et al., “A simulation study provided sample size guidance for differential item functioning (DIF) studies using short scales,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 288–295, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. E. S. Kim, M. Yoon, and T. Lee, “Testing Measurement Invariance Using MIMIC: Likelihood Ratio Test With a Critical Value Adjustment,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 469–492, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. Y. Jin, N. D. Myers, S. Ahn, and R. D. Penfield, “A Comparison of Uniform DIF Effect Size Estimators Under the MIMIC and Rasch Models,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 339–358, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. R. E. Schumacker and R. G. Lomax, A Beginner's Guide to Structural Equation Modeling, Psychology Press, 4th edition, 2015.
  29. S. Depaoli and J. P. Clifton, “A Bayesian approach to multilevel structural equation modeling with continuous and dichotomous outcomes,” Structural Equation Modeling. A Multidisciplinary Journal, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 327–352, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  30. P. Paxton, P. J. Curran, K. A. Bollen, J. Kirby, and F. Chen, “Monte Carlo experiments: design and implementation,” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 287–312, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. M. Harwell, C. A. Stone, T.-C. Hsu, and L. Kirisci, “Monte Carlo studies in item response theory,” Applied Psychological Measurement, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 101–125, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. M. L. Ong, L. Lu, S. Lee, and A. Cohen, “A comparison of the hierarchical generalized linear model, multiple-indicators multiple-causes, and the item response theory-likelihood ratio test for detecting differential item functioning,” in Quantitative Psychology Research, R. Millsap, D. Bolt, L. van der Ark, and W. C. Wang, Eds., vol. 89 of Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2015. View at Google Scholar
  33. Y. Rosseel, “Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling,” Journal of Statistical Software, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 1–36, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  34. S. Nydick, “catIrt: an R package for simulating IRT-based computerized adaptive tests,” R package version 0.5-0, 2014, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=catIrt.
  35. J. Jamali, N. Roustaei, S. M. Taghi Ayatollahi, and E. Sadeghi, “Factors Affecting Minor Psychiatric Disorder in Southern Iranian Nurses: A Latent Class Regression Analysis,” Nursing and Midwifery Studies, vol. 4, no. 2, Article ID e28017, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  36. A. Monterrosa-Castro, K. Portela-Buelvas, H. C. Oviedo, E. Herazo, and A. Campo-Arias, “Differential Item Functioning of the Psychological Domain of the Menopause Rating Scale,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2016, Article ID 8790691, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. C. L. Gay, A. Kottorp, A. Lerdal, and K. A. Lee, “Psychometric limitations of the center for epidemiologic studies-depression scale for assessing depressive symptoms among adults with HIV/AIDS: A rasch analysis,” Depression Research and Treatment, vol. 2016, Article ID 2824595, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. M. K. Monaco, “A Monte Carlo assessment of skewed theta distributions on differential item functioning indices,” Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, vol. 58, article 2746, 132 pages, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  39. J. T. Willse and J. T. Goodman, “Comparison of multiple-indicators, multiple-causes—and item response theory—based analyses of subgroup differences,” Educational and Psychological Measurement. A Bimonthly Journal Devoted to the Development and Application of Measures of Individual Differences, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 587–602, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  40. V. González-Romá, A. Hernández, and J. Gómez-Benito, “Power and type I error of the mean and covariance structure analysis model for detecting differential item functioning in graded response items,” Multivariate Behavioral Research, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 29–53, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. M. N. Gelin, “Type I error rates of the DIF MIMIC approach using Joreskog’s covariance matrix with ML and WLS estimation,” in Department of Education, University of British Columbia, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  42. U. H. Olsson, T. Foss, S. V. Troye, and R. D. Howell, “The performance of ML, GLS, and WLS estimation in structural equation modeling under conditions of misspecification and nonnormality,” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 557–595, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. A. Beauducel and P. Y. Herzberg, “On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA,” Structural Equation Modeling. A Multidisciplinary Journal, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 186–203, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  44. Y. Cheng, C. Shao, and Q. N. Lathrop, “The Mediated MIMIC Model for Understanding the Underlying Mechanism of DIF,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 43–63, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus