In order to compare the two groups, we tested for measurement invariance and then conducted a path analysis. Should we present the results of the measurement invariance test and then compare the path analysis of the groups?
I am confused because some papers present the SEM results of each group before comparing the two groups. Do you have any recommendations?
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to presenting results in research studies, and the order of presenting measurement invariance tests and path analysis can vary depending on the context and purpose of your study. One common approach is to first establish measurement invariance to ensure that the measurement scales used in both groups are comparable. By presenting measurement invariance results first, you demonstrate the validity of comparing the groups on the latent constructs of interest. Following this, you can then proceed to compare the path analysis results between the two groups, which allows for a deeper understanding of the relationships among variables. However, it is also common to present SEM results of each group separately before comparing them, as this can provide a comprehensive understanding of each group's characteristics. Ultimately, the decision should be guided by the specific research objectives and the logical flow of your study.
Hi Ann,
why not incorporate both goals and add the cross-group constraint ("structural equivalence") on the effects after metric invariance has been tested. This would fit nicely into one approach and avoid the use of path analysis (which is a bid strange as you had latent variables in the first approach anyway).
Best,
Holger
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication