방법 비교
선택한 방법을 나란히 검토하세요. 서로 다른 행은 강조 표시됩니다.
| 다집단 측정 불변성 검정× | 확인적 요인 분석 (CFA)× | |
|---|---|---|
| 분야 | 심리측정학 | 심리측정학 |
| 계열 | Latent structure | Latent structure |
| 기원 연도≠ | 1971–1993 | 1969 |
| 창시자≠ | Jöreskog, K. G. (1971); Meredith, W. (1993) | Karl Gustav Jöreskog |
| 유형≠ | Model comparison / hypothesis testing | Hypothesis-testing latent variable model |
| 원전≠ | Vandenberg, R. J. & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. DOI ↗ | Jöreskog, K. G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 34(2), 183–202. DOI ↗ |
| 별칭 | measurement invariance, factorial invariance, cross-group invariance, MI testing | CFA, confirmatory FA, measurement model, restricted factor analysis |
| 관련≠ | 6 | 4 |
| 요약≠ | Multi-group measurement invariance testing examines whether a latent construct is measured in the same way across two or more distinct groups — such as cultures, genders, or age cohorts. It is a prerequisite for meaningful group comparisons of latent means or relationships, ensuring that observed score differences reflect true differences rather than measurement artifacts. | 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. |
| ScholarGate데이터셋 ↗ |
|
|