"A taxonomy of measurement invariance effect size indices": Correction to Meade (2010)

Abstract

Reports an error in "A taxonomy of effect size measures for the differential functioning of items and scales" by Adam W. Meade ( Journal of Applied Psychology , 2010[Jul], Vol 95[4], 728-743). There was an error in Formula 6 on page 731 for the pooled standard deviation of the ESSD index. The correct formula is given in the erratum. Related to this, in Table 8 on page 739, the ETSSD statistic should have been .094 for the cross cultural comparison and .001 for the Administration Format example. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2010-13313-009 .) Much progress has been made in the past 2 decades with respect to methods of identifying measurement invariance or a lack thereof. Until now, the focus of these efforts has been to establish criteria for statistical significance in items and scales that function differently across samples. The power associated with tests of differential functioning, as with all significance tests, is affected by sample size and other considerations. Additionally, statistical significance need not imply practical importance. There is a strong need as such for meaningful effect size indicators to describe the extent to which items and scales function differently. Recently developed effect size measures show promise for providing a metric to describe the amount of differential functioning present between groups. Expanding upon recent developments, this article presents a taxonomy of potential differential functioning effect sizes; several new indices of item and scale differential functioning effect size are proposed and illustrated with 2 data samples. Software created for computing these indices and graphing item- and scale-level differential functioning is described. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)