Abstract
Longitudinal research methods have become increasingly popular with researchers interested in understanding how and why outcomes change over time. Recent developments in statistical methodology and the availability of software with which to conduct such research have made longitudinal methods more accessible. These include latent growth models, which allow researchers in the area of family–school partnerships to investigate issues such as how parental involvement in students’ schoolwork changes over time and how changes in parental involvement relate to changes in students’ achievement levels. The estimation of longitudinal models has traditionally been based on use of the same items at each time point. However, this may pose a problem because items that are developmentally appropriate for younger students may not be appropriate for older students. In this chapter we propose and illustrate developmental measurement models that are appropriate for measuring student outcomes over time, but that do not necessarily include the same items at each age or grade level. These models explicitly allow for items to be dropped from or added to the scale in order to maintain developmental appropriateness, while maintaining a common set of items. Inclusion of the common items provides a basis on which the scores for each age group to be linked or equated such that they are on the same scale. Thus, developmental measurement models make it possible to conduct longitudinal research using scales that are appropriate to each age group.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
We thank Dena Pastor for providing this graph.
- 2.
Because the PCRS was written for infants/toddlers, we changed the word “caregiver” to “teacher” for older children, and added item 2.
- 3.
Under MLR estimation, an adjustment to the chi-square values and degrees of freedom used to conduct the difference test is required. All difference tests are adjusted according to the guidance provided on the Mplus website at: http://www.statmodel.com/chidiff.shtml
References
Bontempo, D. E., & Hofer, S. M. (2007). Assessing factorial invariance in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. In A. D. Ong & M. H. M. Van Dulmen (Eds.), Oxford handbook of methods in positive psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 153–175). New York: Oxford University Press.
Elicker, J., Noppe, I. C., Noppe, L. D., & Fortner-Wood, C. A. (1997). The Parent-Caregiver Relationship Scale: Rounding out the relationship system in infant child care. Early Education and Development, 8, 83–100.
Ferrer, E., Balluerka, N., & Widaman, K. F. (2008). Factorial invariance and the specification of second-order latent growth models. Methodology (Gott), 4, 22–36. doi:10.1027/1614–2241.4.1.22.
Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.) Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 269–314). Greenwich: Information Age.
Hancock, G. R., & Buehl, M. M. (2008). Second-order latent growth models with shifting indicators. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 7, 39–55.
Hancock, G. R., Kuo, W.-L., & Lawrence, F. R. (2001). An illustration of second-order latent growth models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 470–489. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_7
Horn J. L., & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18, 117–144.
Kolen M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling and linking: Methods and practices (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
Lance, C. E., Vandenberg, R. J., & Self, R. M. (2000). Latent growth models of individual change: The newcomer adjustment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processing, 83, 100–140. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2904
Leite, W. L. (2007). A comparison of latent growth models for constructs measured by multiple items. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 581–610.
Marsh H. W., & Grayson, D. (1994). Longitudinal stability of latent means and individual differences: A unified approach. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 317–359.
Pitts, S. C., West, S. G., Tein, J. Y. (1996). Longitudinal measurement models in evaluation research: Examining stability and change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 19, 333–350.
Roid, G. H. (1916–2003). Stanford-Binet intelligence scale(5th ed.). Rolling Meadows: Riverside Publishing.
Sayer A. G., & Cumsille, P. E. (2001). Second-order latent growth models. In M. Collins & A. G. Sayer (Eds.), New methods for the analysis of change (pp. 177–200). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Singer J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wechsler, D. (2004). Wechsler adult intelligence scale (4th ed.). San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix A Mplus Syntax
Appendix A Mplus Syntax
Longitudinal CFA Syntax
Step 1: Configural Invariance
Step 2: Metric Invariance
Step 3: Scalar Invariance
Longitudinal LGM Syntax
Mplus Full Model Syntax
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bandalos, D., Raczynski, K. (2015). Capturing Family–School Partnership Constructs Over Time: Creating Developmental Measurement Models. In: Sheridan, S., Moorman Kim, E. (eds) Foundational Aspects of Family-School Partnership Research. Research on Family-School Partnerships, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13838-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13838-1_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-13837-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-13838-1
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)