Testing measurement invariance of the Learning Programme Management and Evaluation scale across academic achievement.

Abstract

Orientation: Measurement invariance is one of the most precarious aspects of the scale development process without which the interpretation of research findings on population sub-groups may be ambiguous and even invalid. Besides tests for validity and reliability, measurement invariance represents the hallmark for psychometric compliance of a new measuring instrument and provides the basis for inference of research findings across a range of relevant population sub-groups. Research purpose: This study tested the measurement invariance of a Learning Programme Management and Evaluation (LPME) scale across levels of academic achievement. Motivation for the study: It is important for any researcher involved in new scale development to ensure that the measurement instrument and its underlying constructs have proper structural alignment and that they both have the same level of meaning and significance across comparable heterogeneous groups. Research design, approach and method: A quantitative, non-experimental, cross-sectional survey design was used, and data were obtained from 369 participants who were selected from three public sector organisations using a probabilistic simple random sampling technique. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences and Analysis of Moment Structures software (versions 21.0.0) were used to analyse the data. Main findings: The findings show that all the four invariance models tested have achieved acceptable goodness-of-fit indices. Furthermore, the findings show that the factorial structure of the LPME scale and the meaning of its underlying constructs are invariant across different levels of academic achievement for human resource development (HRD) practitioners and learners or apprentices involved in occupational learning programmes. Practical implications: The findings of this study suggest practical implications for HRD scholars as they are enabled to make informed decisional balance comparisons involving educational attainment sub-groups. Contributions and value addition: This study contributes methodologically to the sub-field of HRD by enabling scholars to make comparisons of mean differences or other structural parameters across sub-groups.