Журнал: Социология: методология, методы, математическое моделирование (Социология:4М)

Соколов Б. О., Корсунова В. И.
Нестрогий байесовский подход к проверке допущения об измерительной инвариантности: иллюстрация на примере ценностей выбора

Соколов Борис Олегович
Лаборатория сравнительных социальных исследований, департамент социологии Санкт-Петербургской школы социальных и гуманитарных наук, Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики»
Корсунова Виолетта Игоревна
Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики»

Полный текст

Ссылка при цитировании:

Рубрика:

Аннотация:

Литература:

• Sokolov B. The Index of Emancipative Values: Measurement Model Mis¬specifications // Аmerican Political Science Review. 2018. Vol. 112. No. 2. P. 395–408.
• Schwartz S.H., Cieciuch J., Vecchione M., Davidov E., Fischer R., Beierlein C., Ramos A., Verkasalo M., L?nnqvist J., Demirutku K., Dirilen-Gumus O., Konty M. Refining the Theory of Basic Individual Values // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2012. Vol. 103. No. 4. P. 663–688.
• Inglehart R. The Silent Revolution. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1977.
• Inglehart R. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1990.
• Stegmueller D. Apples and Oranges? The Problem of Equivalence in Compara¬tive Research // Politcal Analysis. 2011. Vol. 19. No. 4. P. 471–487.
• Van Deth J.W. Comparative Politics: the Problem of Equivalence // Сomparative Politics: The Problem of Equivalence / Ed. W. Jan UK: ECPR Press, 2013. P. 1–19.
• Jackman S. Measurement // The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology / Ed. J.M. Box-Steffensmeier et al. Oxford Univ. Press, 2008. Vol. 10. P. 119–151.
• Meredith W. Measurement Invariance, Factor Analysis and Factorial Invari¬ance // Psychometrika. 1993. Vol. 58. No. 4. P. 525–543.
• Steenkamp J., Baumgartner H. Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross-na¬tional Consumer Research // Journal of Consumer Research. 1998. Vol. 25. No. 1. P. 78–90.
• Vandenberg R.J., Lance C.E. A Review and Synthesis of the Measurement Invariance Literature: Suggestions, Practices, and Recommendations for Organizational Research // Organizational Research Methods. 2000. Vol. 3. No. 1. P. 4–70.
• Davidov E., Meuleman B., Cieciuch J., Schmidt P., Billiet J. Measurement Equivalence in Cross-national Research // Sociology. 2014. Vol. 40. P. 44–55.
• Davidov E., Cieciuch J., Meuleman B., Schmidt P., Algesheimer R., Hausherr M. The Comparability of Measurements of Attitudes toward Immigration in the European Social Survey Exact versus Approximate Measurement Equivalence // Public Opinion Quarterly. 2015. Vol. 79. No. S1. P. 244–266.
• Horn J.L., McArdle J.J. A Practical and Theoretical Guide to Measurement Invari¬ance in Aging Research // Experimental Aging Research. 1992. Vol. 18. No. 3. P. 117–144.
• Welzel C., Inglehart R.F. Misconceptions of Measurement Equivalence Time for a Paradigm Shift // Comparative Political Studies. 2016. Vol. 49. No. 8. P. 1068–1094.
• Davidov E. A Cross-country and Cross-time Comparison of the Human Val¬ues Measurements with the Second Round of the European Social Survey // Survey Research Methods. 2008. Vol. 2. No. 1. P. 33–46.
• MacIntosh R. Global Attitude Measurement: an Assessment of the World Values Survey Postmaterialism Scale // American Sociological Review. 1998. Vol. 63. No. 3. P. 452–464.
• Ippel L., Gelissen J., Moors G. Investigating Longitudinal and Cross-cultural Measurement Invariance of Inglehart’s Short Post-materialism Scale // Social Indica¬tors Research. 2014. Vol. 115. No. 3. P. 919–932.
• Alem?n J., Woods D. Value Orientations from the World Values Survey How Comparable are They Cross-nationally? // Comparative Political Studies. 2015. Vol. 49. No. 8. Р.1039–1067.
• Welzel C. Freedom Rising. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
• Muth?n B., Asparouhov T. BSEM Measurement Invariance Analysis // Mplus Web Notes. 2013. Vol. 17. P. 1–48.
• Van De Schoot R., Kluytmans A., Tummers L., Lugtig P., Hox J., Muth?n B. Facing off with Scylla and Charybdis: a Comparison of Scalar, Partial, and the Novel Possibility of Approximate Measurement Invariance // Frontiers in Psychology. 2012. Vol. 4. P. 1–15. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00770.
• J?reskog K.G. Simultaneous Factor Analysis in Several Populations // Psy¬chometrika. 1971. Vol. 36. No. 4. P. 409–426.
• Brown T.A. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. London: The Guilford press, 2005.
• Kankara? M., Moors G., Vermunt J.K. Testing for Measurement Invariance with Latent Class Analysis // Cross-cultural Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: Routledge, 2011. P. 359–384.
• Руднев М.Г. Инвариантность измерения базовых ценностей по методике Шварца среди русскоязычного населения четырех стран // Социология: методо¬логия, методы, математическое моделирование. 2013. №. 37. С. 7–38.
• Стребкова О.Н., Понарин Э.Д., Костенко В.В. Проверка измерительной инвариантности: случай порядковых переменных (на примере гендерного эгали¬таризма в арабских странах) // Социология: методология, методы, математическое моделирование, 2017. № 44. C. 7–36.
• Wicherts J.M., Dolan C.V. Measurement Invariance in Confirmatory Fac¬tor Analysis: аn Illustration Using IQ Test Performance of Minorities // Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2010. Vol. 29. No. 3. P. 39–47.
• Zercher F., Schmidt P., Cieciuch J., Davidov E. The Comparability of the Universalism Value over Time and across Countries in the European Social Survey: Exact vs. Approximate Measurement Invariance // Frontiers in Psychology. 2015. No. 6. P. 1–11. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00733.
• Davidov E. et al. Using a Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling Approach to Explain Cross-cultural Measurement Noninvariance // Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology. 2012. Vol. 43. No. 4. P. 558–575.
• Meuleman B. When are Item Intercept Differences Substantively Relevant in Measurement Invariance Testing? // Methods, Theories, and Empirical Applications in the Social Sciences. – VS Verlag f?r Sozialwissenschaften, 2012. P. 97–104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-18898-0_13.
• Oberski D.L. Evaluating Sensitivity of Parameters of Interest to Measurement Invariance in Latent Variable Models // Political Analysis. 2014. Vol. 22. No. 1. P. 45–60.
• Byrne B.M., Shavelson R.J., Muth?n B. Testing for the Equivalence of Fac¬tor Covariance and Mean Structures: the Issue of Partial Measurement Invariance // Psychological Bulletin. 1989. Vol. 105. No. 3. P. 456.
• Gelman A., Carlin J.B., Stern H.S., Dunson D.B., Vehtari A., Rubin D.B. Bayesian Data Analysis. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2014. Vol. 2.
• Western B. Bayesian Analysis for Sociologists. An Introduction // Sociological Methods & Research. 1999. Vol. 28. No. 1. P. 7–34.
• Cieciuch J., Davidov E., Schmidt P., Algesheimer R., Schwartz S.H. Compar¬ing Results of an Exact versus an Approximate (Bayesian) Measurement Invariance Test: a Cross-country Illustration with a New Scale to Measure 19 Human Values // Frontiers in Psychology. 2014. No. 5. P.1–10. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00982.
• Cheung G.W., Rensvold R.B. Evaluating Goodness-of-fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance // Structural Equation Modeling. 2002. Vol. 9. No. 2. P. 233–255.
• Muth?n B., Asparouhov T. Bayesian Structural Equation Modeling: a More Flexible Representation of Substantive Theory // Psychological Methods. 2012. Vol. 17. No. 3. P. 313–335.
• Hu L.T., Bentler P.M. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives // Structural Equation Model¬ing. 1999. Vol. 6. No. 1. P. 1–55.
• Chen F.F. Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance // Structural Equation Modeling. 2007. Vol. 14. No. 3. P. 464–504.
• Muth?n L.K., Muth?n B.O. Mplus User’s Guide. 7th ed. Los Angeles: Muth?n and Muth?n, 2012.
• Lek K.M., Oberski D.L., Davidov E., Cieciuch J., Seddig D., Schmidt P. Ap¬proximate Measurement Invariance // Advances in Comparative Survey Methodology. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2018. P. 1–18.
• Hoijtink H., Schoot van de R. Testing Small Variance Priors Using Prior-pos¬terior Predictive p-values // Psychological Methods. 2017. DOI: 10.1037/met0000131.
• Asparouhov T., Muth?n B. Multiple-group Factor Analysis Alignment // Structural Equation Modelling. 2014. Vol. 21. No. 4. P. 495–508.

Сведения об авторах

Содержание выпуска

>> Содержание выпуска 2018. Том. 0. № 46.

>> Архив журнала