Measurement Invariance Testing
This tutorial employs a multigroup latent growth curve modeling approach to test measurement invariance across sex groups. Measurement invariance testing evaluates whether the same construct is being measured equivalently across groups - a prerequisite for valid group comparisons. We fit a series of increasingly constrained models (M1-M4) that test different levels of equivalence: M1 tests full equality across groups, M2 relaxes latent mean constraints, M3 further relaxes variance/covariance constraints, and M4 (the least constrained) only constrains factor loadings to be equal across groups. By comparing model fit across these nested models, we can determine the appropriate level of invariance and whether observed group differences in trajectories reflect genuine developmental differences rather than measurement artifacts.
Model Comparison Strategy
The analysis compares four nested models with progressively relaxed constraints to test measurement invariance:M1 (Full Equality): All parameters constrained equal across sex groups - tests whether males and females show identical growth patterns in all respectsM2 (Equal Variances/Covariances): Relaxes latent mean constraints, allowing groups to differ in average intercepts and slopes while maintaining equal variances and covariancesM3 (Equal Loadings/Residuals): Further relaxes variance/covariance constraints, permitting group differences in individual variability around mean trajectoriesM4 (Metric Invariance): The least constrained model, requiring only equal factor loadings across groups - establishes that time points are measured on the same scale for both groupsModel comparison uses chi-square difference tests to evaluate whether relaxing constraints significantly improves fit. Non-significant differences suggest the more constrained model is adequate, supporting equivalent measurement and structural parameters across groups.# Visualizing the latent growth curve model
sem_diagram <- semPaths(
fit$M1, # Your fitted LGCM model
what = "path", # Display path diagram
whatLabels = "par", # Show parameter estimates
style = "lisrel", # A clean layout for SEM models
nCharNodes = 0, # Avoid truncating variable names
layout = "tree", # Hierarchical layout (better for growth models)
residuals = FALSE, # Hide residuals for clarity
curvePivot = TRUE, # Adjust curvature of paths
intercepts = FALSE, # Hide intercepts for clarity
edge.label.cex = 0.8, # Adjust label size
sizeMan = 7, # Increase node size
sizeLat = 10, # Increase latent variable size
group.label = TRUE
)
png(
filename = "sem_diagram.png",
width = 1200,
height = 900,
res = 150
)
Interpretation
The multigroup LGCM found meaningful between-person variability in both baseline memory and change. Intercept variances were 117.0 for females and 100.5 for males, while slope variances were 7.0 and 5.1 respectively, indicating that members of each group start from different levels and improve at different rates. Covariance patterns hinted at subtle sex differences: females showed virtually no association between initial status and change (โ0.14, p = .96), whereas males displayed a positive but only marginally significant covariance (4.85, p = .085), suggesting that higher-baseline males may recover slightly faster. Despite these nuances, nested model comparisons (M2โM3โM4) yielded ฮฯยฒ = 2.69, p = .443, so loosening equality constraints did not materially improve fit. The take-away is that memory growth curves are largely comparable across sex, with variance components doing most of the work to capture heterogeneity rather than group-specific fixed effects.
Visualization Notes
The faceted plot shows individual memory trajectories (faint lines) and group-level trends (bold smoothers) for males and females side by side. Both panels slope upward, matching the modelโs conclusion that memory improves over time, yet the spreads differ slightly: female trajectories fan out more, echoing the larger intercept and slope variances estimated for that group. Points at each assessment anchor the smooth lines to the observed data, so readers can judge how well the fitted curves represent reality. Because the means rise at similar rates in both panels, the figure visually supports the invariance tests showing no compelling sex differences in the fixed effects, while still highlighting the heterogeneity that motivates a multigroup LGCM.