Vertaile menetelmiä
Tarkastele valitsemiasi menetelmiä rinnakkain; eroavat rivit korostetaan.
| Moniryhmäisen erilaisen vastausmekanismin analyysi (MG-DIF)× | Vahvistava faktorianalyysi (CFA)× | |
|---|---|---|
| Tieteenala | Psykometriikka | Psykometriikka |
| Menetelmäperhe | Latent structure | Latent structure |
| Syntyvuosi≠ | 1980s-1990s | 1969 |
| Kehittäjä≠ | Shealy & Stout (SIBTEST framework); Lord (IRT-based DIF) | Karl Gustav Jöreskog |
| Tyyppi≠ | Measurement bias detection | Hypothesis-testing latent variable model |
| Alkuperäislähde≠ | Millsap, R. E. (2012). Statistical Approaches to Measurement Invariance. Routledge. ISBN: 978-1848728936 | Jöreskog, K. G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 34(2), 183–202. DOI ↗ |
| Rinnakkaisnimet | MG-DIF, multi-group DIF, differential item functioning across groups, multiple-group DIF analysis | CFA, confirmatory FA, measurement model, restricted factor analysis |
| Liittyvät≠ | 6 | 4 |
| Tiivistelmä≠ | Multi-group differential item functioning examines whether test or scale items function equivalently across three or more distinct groups — such as gender, ethnicity, or country — after matching respondents on the underlying trait being measured. Items that behave differently across groups threaten fair measurement and valid score comparisons. | Confirmatory factor analysis tests a researcher-specified factor structure against observed data. Unlike exploratory approaches, the researcher decides in advance which indicators load on which latent factor, and the model is evaluated by how closely the implied covariance matrix reproduces the sample covariance matrix. CFA is central to scale validation, construct validity assessment, and measurement invariance testing. |
| ScholarGateAineisto ↗ |
|
|