↓ Skip to main content

An approximate measurement invariance approach to within-couple relationship quality

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An approximate measurement invariance approach to within-couple relationship quality
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00983
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlo Chiorri, Thomas Day, Lars-Erik Malmberg

Abstract

This study aimed at demonstrating the usefulness and flexibility of the Bayesian structural equation modeling approximate measurement invariance (BSEM-AMI) approach to within-couple data. The substantive aim of the study was investigating partner differences in the perception of relationship quality (RQ) in a sample of intact couples (n = 435) drawn from the first sweep of the Millenium Cohort Study. Configural, weak and strong invariance models were tested using both maximum likelihood (ML) and BSEM approaches. As evidence of a lack of strong invariance was found, full and partial AMI models were specified, allowing nine different prior variances or "wiggle rooms." Although we could find an adequately fitting BSEM-AMI model allowing for approximate invariance of all the intercepts, the two-step approach proposed by Muthén and Asparouhov (2013b) for identifying problematic parameters and applying AMI only to them provided less biased results. Findings similar to the ML partial invariance model, led us to conclude that women reported a higher RQ than men. The results of this study highlight the need to inspect parameterization indeterminacy (or alignment) and support the efficacy of the two-step approach to BSEM-AMI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 42 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 26%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 5 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 47%
Social Sciences 7 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 7 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 September 2014.
All research outputs
#18,379,018
of 22,764,165 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,042
of 29,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,345
of 250,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#321
of 361 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,764,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,675 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 250,225 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 361 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.