Standard Error Estimation in Invariance Alignment

The invariance alignment (IA) method enables group comparisons in factor models involving either continuous or discrete items. This article evaluates the performance of the commonly used delta method for standard error estimation against alternative bootstrap confidence interval (CI) approaches for IA using the L0.5 and L0 loss functions. For IA applied to continuous items, both the delta method and all bootstrap methods yielded acceptable coverage rates. In contrast, for dichotomous items, only bias-corrected bootstrap CIs provided reliable statistical inference in moderate to large sample sizes. In small sample sizes with dichotomous items, none of the individual methods performed consistently well. However, a newly proposed average bootstrap CI approach—based on averaging the lower and upper CI limits from two bootstrap methods—achieved acceptable coverage rates.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Mathematics
Published
2025-06-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/math13121915
Primary Topic
Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Standard Error Estimation in Invariance Alignment

Alexander Robitzsch
Mathematics
Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
article

Standard Error Estimation in Invariance Alignment

Alexander Robitzsch
article en

Abstract

The invariance alignment (IA) method enables group comparisons in factor models involving either continuous or discrete items. This article evaluates the performance of the commonly used delta method for standard error estimation against alternative bootstrap confidence interval (CI) approaches for IA using the L0.5 and L0 loss functions. For IA applied to continuous items, both the delta method and all bootstrap methods yielded acceptable coverage rates. In contrast, for dichotomous items, only bias-corrected bootstrap CIs provided reliable statistical inference in moderate to large sample sizes. In small sample sizes with dichotomous items, none of the individual methods performed consistently well. However, a newly proposed average bootstrap CI approach—based on averaging the lower and upper CI limits from two bootstrap methods—achieved acceptable coverage rates.

MathematicsVol. 13(12)
Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 85%
Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.