SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 3

Investigation of the Effect of Missing Data Handling Methods on Measurement Invariance of Multi-Dimensional Structures

Mehmet Ali IŞIKOĞLU
Burcu ATAR
Pages
311–323
Publication Date
2020-09-27
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In the results of the study, RI and MI methods in the data set with 5% missing, EM method in the data set with 10% missing, and MI method in the data set with 20% missing gave the more similar results to the reference values than the other methods.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study was to compare the missing data handling methods on measurement invariance of multi-dimensional structures.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, data of 10857 students who participated in PISA 2015 administration from Turkey and Singapore and fully responded to the items related to affective characteristics of science literacy was used.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In the results of the study, RI and MI methods in the data set with 5% missing, EM method in the data set with 10% missing, and MI method in the data set with 20% missing gave the more similar results to the reference values than the other methods.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:missing data handling methods · measurement invariance · multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the missing data handling methods on measurement invariance of multi-dimensional structures. For this purpose, data of 10857 students who participated in PISA 2015 administration from Turkey and Singapore and fully responded to the items related to affective characteristics of science literacy was used. Data with different percentages of missing data (5%, 10%, and 20% missing data) were generated from the complete data set with missing completely at random (MCAR) mechanism. In all data sets, missing data was completed with listwise deletion (LD), serial mean imputation (SMI), regression imputation (RI), expectation maximization (EM), and multiple imputation (MI) methods. Measurement invariance of the construct being measured between countries on completed data sets was investigated with multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis (MG-CFA). Findings from each dataset were compared with reference values. In the results of the study, RI and MI methods in the data set with 5% missing, EM method in the data set with 10% missing, and MI method in the data set with 20% missing gave the more similar results to the reference values than the other methods.

🔖

Cite This Article

IŞIKOĞLU, M. A., ATAR, B. (2020). Investigation of the Effect of Missing Data Handling Methods on Measurement Invariance of Multi-Dimensional Structures. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 3, 311–323. https://ajindex.com/articles/137299

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Akbaş, U., & Tavşancıl, E. (2015). Farklı örneklem büyüklüklerinde ve kayıp veri örüntülerinde ölçeklerin psikometrik özelliklerinin kayıp veri baş etme teknikleri ile incelenmesi. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 6(1), 38-57.
  2. Alıcı, D. (2013). Okula yönelik tutum ölçeği’nin geliştirilmesi: Güvenirlik ve geçerlik çalışması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 38(268), 318-331.
  3. Allison, P. D. (2001).
  4. Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Allison, P. D. (2003). Missing data techniques for structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112(4), 545-557.
  5. Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. (2014). Multiple-group factor analysis alignment. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(4), 1-14.
  6. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press.
  7. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464-504.
  8. Chen, S. F., Wang, S., & Chen, C. Y. (2012). A simulation study using EFA and CFA programs based the impact of the missing data on test dimensionality. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(4), 4026-4031.
  9. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233-255.
  10. Chung, H., Kim, J., Park, R., Bamer, A. M., Bocell, F. D., & Amtmann, D. (2016). Testing the measurement invariance of the University of Washington Self-Efficacy Scale short form across four diagnostic subgroups. Qual Life Res., 25(10), 2559-2564.
  11. Çüm, S. & Gelbal, S. (2015). Kayıp veriler yerine yaklaşık değer atamada kullanılan farklı yöntemlerin model veri uyumu üzerindeki etkisi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35, 87-111.
  12. Demir, E. (2013). Kayıp verilerin varlığında çoktan seçmeli testlerde madde ve test parametrelerinin kestirilmesi: SBS örneği. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(2), 47-68.
  13. Downey, R. G. & King, C. V. (1998). Missing data in likert ratings: A comparison of replacement methods. The Journal of General Psychology, 125(2), 175-191.
  14. Drasgow, F. (1984). Scrutinizing psychological tests: Measurement equivalence and equivalent relations with external variables are the central issues. Psychological Bulletin, 95(1), 134-135.
  15. Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.
  16. Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory factor an