ScholarGate
助手

方法对比

并排查看您选择的方法;存在差异的行会高亮显示。

多群体区分效度评估×多组验证性因子分析 (MG-CFA)×
领域心理测量学心理测量学
方法族Latent structureLatent structure
起源年份1981 (foundational criterion); multi-group extension 1990s–2000s1971
提出者Fornell & Larcker (for the AVE-based criterion); extended to multi-group settings by the SEM invariance literatureKarl Jöreskog
类型Validity assessment / model comparisonMeasurement model / invariance test
开创性文献Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. DOI ↗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 ↗
别名cross-group discriminant validity, multi-sample discriminant validity, MGDV, discriminant validity across groupsMG-CFA, multi-group CFA, measurement invariance testing, multi-sample CFA
相关56
摘要Multi-group discriminant validity assessment tests whether constructs measured by a scale are empirically distinct not just in one sample but consistently across two or more groups (e.g., cultures, genders, age cohorts). It extends standard discriminant validity criteria — such as the AVE rule and the HTMT ratio — into a multi-group confirmatory factor analysis framework to verify that conceptual distinctness is replicable across subpopulations.Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis tests whether a measurement model holds equivalently across two or more groups — such as cultures, genders, or time points. By imposing increasingly stringent equality constraints and comparing model fit, it determines whether comparisons of latent mean scores are justified.
ScholarGate数据集
  1. v1
  2. 2 来源
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 来源
  3. PUBLISHED

前往搜索 下载幻灯片

ScholarGate方法对比: Multi-group discriminant validity · Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis. 于 2026-06-18 检索自 https://scholargate.app/zh/compare