Factor Structure and Factorial Invariance of the Multidimensional …qhuynh/PDFs/PA2015.pdf · 2015. 3. 4. · Miami University Que-Lam Huynh California State University-Northridge

Factor Structure and Factorial Invariance of the MultidimensionalAcculturative Stress Inventory

Linda G. CastilloTexas A&M University

Miguel A. CanoFlorida International University

Myeongsun Yoon and Eunju JungTexas A&M University

Elissa J. BrownSt. John’s University

Byron L. ZamboangaSmith College

Su Yeong KimUniversity of Texas at Austin

Seth J. SchwartzMiami University

Que-Lam HuynhCalifornia State University-Northridge

Robert S. WeisskirchCalifornia State University-Monterey Bay

Susan Krauss WhitbourneUniversity of Massachusetts-Amherst

Using a national data set, this study examined the factor structure and factorial invariance of theMultidimensional Acculturative Stress Inventory (MASI) across Latino and Asian Americans, gender,and nativity (U.S.- vs. foreign-born). Results showed that a 4-factor model of acculturative stressprovided good fit to the data. Tests of factorial invariance provided evidence of measurement equivalenceacross all of the groupings tested. These findings suggest that the MASI operationalizes acculturativestress in an equivalent manner across Latino and Asian American students, gender, and nativity.

Keywords: acculturative stress, Asian American, gender, measurement invariance, Latino, nativity

Acculturation, the process of cultural change that occurs whentwo cultural groups come into contact, has become an importantarea of study (Schwartz, Unger, Zamboanga, & Szapocznik, 2010).Investigation of the acculturation process has provided a betterunderstanding of between- and within-group differences for Latinoand Asian American mental health outcomes and health behaviors.For many Latino and Asian American college students, an accul-turation process occurs when they are expected to adopt theuniversity’s cultural norms to succeed in college (Castillo,Conoley, & Brossart, 2004). As these students undergo a culturalshift, they are at risk for experiencing acculturative stress. Accul-turative stress includes difficulties due to (a) personal and institu-

tional discrimination, (b) learning and becoming competent in anew language, (c) leaving family and friends behind in the countryof origin, (d) pressure to adopt new cultural values and behaviors,and (e) pressure from heritage culture members to not becomeAmericanized (Castillo, Conoley, Brossart, & Quiros, 2007; Go-mez et al., 2011; Rodriguez, Myers, Mira, Flores & Garcia-Hernandez, 2002).Acculturative stress and its association to psychological malad-

justment (e.g., depressive symptoms) among Latino and AsianAmerican college students has been well documented (e.g., Con-stantine, Okazaki, & Utsey, 2004). However, few studies haveexamined the psychometric properties of acculturative stress mea-

Linda G. Castillo, Department of Educational Psychology, Texas A&MUniversity; Miguel A. Cano, Department of Epidemiology, Florida Interna-tional University; Myeongsun Yoon, Department of Educational Psychology,Texas A&M University; Eunju Jung, Institute for Engineering Education andInnovation, Texas A&M University; Elissa J. Brown, Department of Psychol-ogy, St. John’s University; Byron L. Zamboanga, Department of Psychology,Smith College; Su Yeong Kim, Human Development and Family Sciences,University of Texas at Austin; Seth J. Schwartz, Department of Public HealthSciences, Miami University; Que-Lam Huynh, Department of Psychology,

California State University-Northridge; Robert S. Weisskirch, Department ofLiberal Studies, California State University-Monterey Bay; Susan KraussWhitbourne, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University ofMassachusetts-Amherst.This article was prepared as part of the Multi-Site University Study of

Identity and Culture. All members of the collaborative are gratefullyacknowledged.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Linda G.

Castillo, Department of Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University,College Station, TX 77843. E-mail: [email protected]

ThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.

Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.

Psychological Assessment © 2015 American Psychological Association2015, Vol. 27, No. 1, 000 1040-3590/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000095

1

sures and whether they operate in an equivalent fashion acrossethnic groups, gender, and nativity (U.S.- vs. foreign-born). Thus,the aim of this study was to test the factor structure and factorialinvariance of the Multidimensional Acculturative Stress Inventory(MASI; Rodriguez et al., 2002) with a national sample of collegestudents across ethnic group (Latino and Asian American), gender,and nativity.The MASI is a 25-item measure developed to assess the sources

of acculturative stress that originates from the heritage and receiv-ing cultures among people of Mexican origin and other Latinoethnic groups (Rodriguez et al., 2002). Rodriguez et al. conceptu-alized acculturative stress as a complex construct that encompassesfour factors such as difficulties in language competency (heritageand/or receiving culture’s languages), pressure to acculturate, andpressure against acculturation. The MASI is composed of fourfactors. Spanish Competency Pressures is the first factor. It as-sesses for stress caused by difficulties with Spanish (e.g., “I don’tspeak Spanish or don’t speak it well.”). The second factor, EnglishCompetency Pressure, evaluates stress caused by difficulties withEnglish (e.g., “It bothers me that I speak English with an accent.”).The third factor, Pressure to Acculturate, is the perceived pressureone experiences to adopt American cultural norms (e.g., “It bothersme when people pressure me to assimilate to the American waysof doing things.”). Pressure Against Acculturation is the fourthfactor. It measures the perceived pressure from heritage culturemembers to avoid adopting American cultural norms and becom-ing Americanized (e.g., “People look down on me if I practiceAmerican customs”). Although the original measure was createdfor and scores validated with Latino participants, the scale hasbeen modified by researchers and used with Arab Americans (e.g.,Wrobel, Farrag, & Hymes, 2009) and with African Americans andAsian Americans (Weisskirch et al., 2011).In their sample of 174 adults of Mexican origin, Rodriguez et al.

(2002) confirmed the four factors of their conceptual model ofacculturative stress. Furthermore, they found that all factors, ex-cept Pressure to Acculturate, were correlated with length of time inthe United States. However, results from their hierarchical regres-sion analysis showed that only Pressure to Acculturate predictedpsychological distress and low well-being scale scores. Thesefindings may indicate that nativity (i.e., whether or not one wasborn in the U.S. or foreign born) may relate to acculturative stress.Other than Rodriguez et al.’s (2002)validation study of the

MASI, we could not find any studies that evaluated the four-factorstructure. Thus, it is not known whether the four factors wouldhold in a larger, national sample of Latinos. Furthermore, it isunclear whether the MASI would operate in an equivalent fashionbetween Latino and Asian American groups, gender, or nativity.Because factors such as ethnic heritage, gender, and nativity statushave been shown to be associated with acculturative stress (Torres,Driscoll, & Voell, 2012), evidence of measurement equivalenceacross these demographics is needed to determine whether ob-served mean score differences represent a true difference orwhether the differences are due to measurement artifact (French &Finch, 2006).A review of the literature suggests that acculturative stress may

vary among different ethnic groups (Gomez, Miranda, & Polanco,2011; Kimbro, Gorman, & Schachter, 2012). For instance, usingthe Social, Family, Attitudinal, and EnvironmentalScale —revised(SAFE–R; Fuertes & Westbrook, 1996), Gomez et al. examined

acculturative stress and vulnerability to suicide attempts amongAsian American, Latino, Black American, and White Americanstudents. They found that Asian American college students accul-turative stress scores were significantly higher than Latino, Black,and White participants. In that same study, Latino participantsreported higher levels of acculturative stress than White, U.S.-bornparticipants. However, White foreign-born participants reportedsimilar levels of attitudinal acculturative stress (i.e., stress thatarises due to separation from family and friends) in comparison toLatino participants.Conversely, a study using the Acculturative Stress Scale for

International Students (Sandhu & Asrabadi, 1994) found that La-tino international students reported higher acculturative stressscores compared with Asian or African international students(Constantine et al., 2004). Finally, in a study using the NationalLatino and Asian American Study (NLAAS), a nationally repre-sented community household survey, results showed that AsianAmericans reported lower levels of acculturative stress than Lati-nos (Kimbro et al., 2012). Acculturative stress was assessed witha summed index based on responses to nine questions developedspecifically for the national survey on mental health and healthcare.It is well documented that nativity status is associated with

acculturative stress. Using the MASI in a study of Latino distress,Torres et al. (2012) found that acculturative stress scores wereassociated with nativity status. More specifically, foreign-bornparticipants had higher acculturative stress scores than U.S.-bornparticipants. Similarly, a study using the NLAAS data, found thatforeign-born Asian American participants reported higher accul-turative stress than U.S.-born Asian Americans (Tummala-Narra,Alegria, & Chen, 2012).As noted by scholars, there is an assumption that acculturative

stress only affects recent immigrants (Rodriguez et al., 2002).However, research suggests that both U.S.-born and foreign-bornindividuals experience acculturative stress. In a study of languagebrokering using a racially diverse sample of college students,Weisskirch et al. (2011) conducted a principal components factoranalysis with varimax rotation to ascertain whether cultural vari-ables (i.e., acculturative stress, familism, filial piety, communal-ism, ethnic identity, and familial ethnic socialization) would clus-ter into interpretable latent constructs. Results showed that theMASI’s four subscales comprised a latent construct. Weisskirch etal. propose that for U.S.-born and foreign-born participants, “ac-culturative stress includes language competency pressures, pres-sures about acculturation, and not feeling affirmation from one’sethnic group” (p. 48), which supports Rodriguez et al.’s (2002)conceptual model of acculturative stress. However, this is the onlystudy we could find that examined Rodriguez et al.’s (2002) fourfactors of acculturative stress across nativity.Collectively, these findings may indicate that ethnicity may not

be the only influential factor on acculturative stress—nativity mayalso influence the amount of acculturative stress one experiences.It could be that being foreign-born perpetually makes one feelmore acculturative stress when residing in the United States.Understanding if measuring acculturative stress varies across eth-nicity and nativity can clarify this issue.Research also suggests that acculturative stress varies across

gender (Castillo et al., in press; Gomez et al., 2011). For example,Gomez et al.’s study (2011) also found gender differences in the



2 CASTILLO ET AL.

experience of acculturative stress and suicide attempts. They foundthat women scored higher than men on social and attitudinalacculturative stress and were more likely to have reported previoussuicide attempts. Conversely, a study using the SAFE–R (Fuertes& Westbrook, 1996) found that gender was not significantly re-lated to acculturative stress for Asian American college students(Castillo, Zahn, & Cano, 2012). Therefore, the relationship ofgender and acculturative stress remains elusive.Although research has provided insight to the between- and

within-group variations in the experience of acculturative stress, itis unclear whether they are due to (a) differences in the interpre-tation of the meaning of the concepts reflected in the items or (b)true differences in the experience of acculturative stress betweenethnic groups, gender, and nativity. This matter is further compli-cated in that it is common practice to use scales originally devel-oped for one specific ethnic group (e.g., Latino) and then revise thescale to apply to another ethnic group (e.g., Arab Americans). Thispractice can be problematic and likely erroneous without empiricalevidence that the scale items function similarly across groups(Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). Without evidence of a scale’smeasurement invariance, the conclusion of a study can be ques-tionable. Thus, the present study sought to investigate the factorstructure and factorial invariance of the MASI with Latino andAsian American college students across ethnic group, gender, andnativity. First, we examined the degree to which the hypothesizedfour-factor model of the MASI was supported by the data. Second,by conducting increasingly stringent factorial invariance tests (i.e.,configural, metric, scalar, and strict invariance tests), we assessedwhether the four-factor model is invariant by ethnicity (i.e., AsianAmerican and Latino), gender (i.e., men and women), and nativity(i.e., U.S- and foreign-born).

Method

Participants and Procedures

Data used for this study were collected as part of the nationalMulti-Site University Study of Identity and Culture research col-laborative (Weisskirch et al., 2013). The sample included a raciallyand ethnically diverse group of 10,573 undergraduate students(M age ! 20.3 years, SD ! 3.37 years; 73% women) from 29colleges and universities in 20 states across the United States.Fifteen of the sites were major public universities, eight weresmaller state universities, and six were private institutions (seeTable 1 for more geographic details). Data were collected betweenSeptember 2008 and October 2009.In the national study, participants were recruited from courses

across several disciplines: psychology, family studies, business,education, and sociology. Participants were directed to webpagewhere they read a brief description of the study and providedconsent before proceeding to the online survey. All instruments inthe survey were in English. The institutional review boards at eachof the study sites approved the study.Given the goals of the present study, the working sample was

selected from all participants who self-selected as being AsianAmerican (n ! 1,377) or Latino (n ! 1,517) in response to asurvey item that asked, “My ethnicity is . . ..” The majority ofAsian American (65%) and Latino (75%) participants werewomen. Also, over half of the participants for each ethnic groupwere born in the United States. In terms of family income, 28%and 27% of Latino and Asian American participants reported anincome of “below $30,000.” Table 1 provides a breakdown ofparticipant characteristics by ethnic subgroup.

InstrumentAs originally constructed, the MASI (Rodriguez et al., 2002)

was developed for adults of Mexican origin and yielded foursubscales: Spanish Competency Pressures (seven items), EnglishCompetency Pressures (seven items), Pressures to Acculturate

Table 1Demographic Characteristics of Asian American andLatino Participants

CharacteristicLatino Asian American

(n ! 1,517) (n ! 1,377)

Age 20.35 (SD!3.88) 19.85 (SD!2.12)GenderMen 368 (24%) 476 (36%)Women 1149 (75%) 901 (65%)

Family incomeBelow $30,000 423 (28%) 371 (27%)$30,000–50,000 397 (26%) 313 (23%)$50,000–100,000 399 (26%) 393 (29%)Above $100,000 254 (17%) 262 (19%)

NativityU.S.-born 1168 (77%) 885 (64%)Foreign-born 356 (23%) 495 (36%)

RegionSoutheast 808 (53%) 230 (17%)Northeast 64 (4%) 93 (7%)Midwest 59 (4%) 178 (13%)Southwest 242 (16%) 138 (10%)West 310 (20%) 719 (52%)

Note. All numbers outside parentheses are N values, except for age,which is the mean value.

Table 2Conformitory Factor Analysis Model Fit Indices

N "2 df RMSEA CFI SRMR

Baseline modelLatino 1,432 2,524.761!! 269 .077 .905 .063Asian American 1,313 2,340.180!! 269 .077 .896 .065Men 793 1,542.619!! 269 .077 .908 .057Women 1,936 3,247.750!! 269 .076 .898 .063U.S.-born 1,936 2,970.228!! 269 .072 .910 .058Foreign-born 805 1,616.890!! 269 .079 .898 .059

Final modelLatino 1,432 2,283.768!! 268 .072 .915 .061Asian American 1,313 2,059.447!! 268 .071 .910 .063Men 793 1,406.924!! 268 .073 .918 .055Women 1,936 2,863.400!! 268 .071 .912 .061U.S.-born 1,936 2,558.026!! 268 .066 .924 .056Foreign-born 805 1,542.328!! 268 .077 .904 .059

Note. The final model was the modified model which has the correlationbetween the unique variances of the items one and four.!! p # .01.



3FACTORIAL INVARIANCE OF MASI

(seven items), and Pressure against Acculturation (four items).Spanish Competency Pressure items were modified to assess forHeritage Language Competency Pressure by changing the wordSpanish to the general term heritage language (e.g., “I feel pres-sure to learn Spanish” was changed to “I feel pressure to learn myfamily’s heritage language”). Items are summed with greaterscores indicating higher levels of acculturative stress. Participantsrated the items using a five-point scale ranging from 1 (stronglydisagree) to 5 (strongly agree). For this study, alpha for the MASIwas as follows: Latino ! .92; Asian American ! .91; men ! .97;women ! .94; U.S.-born ! .95; and foreign-born ! .95. For the

total sample, alphas for Heritage Language Competency Pressure,English Competency Pressure, Pressure to Acculturate, and Pres-sure against Acculturation subscales were .86, .91, .84, and .81,respectively.

Data AnalysisData analyses were conducted in three steps. In the first step, we

examined the factor structure of the MASI scale in six groups ofinterest (i.e., Asian American, Latino, men, women, U.S.-born, andforeign-born) using confirmatory factor analysis. The hypothesized

Table 3Standardized Factor Loading Estimates of Each Demographic Group

Items

Estimated factor loadings

Latino Asian American Men Women U.S.-born Foreign-born

Heritage language competence pressureItem 1 I don’t speak my family’s heritage language or don’t speak it

well.0.660 0.581 0.638 0.623 0.577 0.730

Item 2 I feel uncomfortable being around people who only speak myfamily’s heritage language.

0.633 0.590 0.615 0.610 0.611 0.606

Item 3 I feel pressure to learn my family’s heritage language. 0.690 0.594 0.625 0.651 0.624 0.664Item 4 I have a hard time understanding others when they speak my

family’s heritage language.0.747 0.667 0.737 0.701 0.673 0.790

Item 5 Since I don’t speak my family’s heritage language well, peoplehave treated me rudely or unfairly.

0.872 0.864 0.876 0.863 0.856 0.898

Item 6 It bothers me when people assume that I speak my family’sheritage language.

0.711 0.730 0.733 0.711 0.699 0.752

Item 7 I have been discriminated against because I have difficultyspeaking my family’s heritage language.

0.837 0.873 0.861 0.850 0.841 0.884

English competence pressureItem 8 I don’t speak English or don’t speak it well. 0.835 0.868 0.873 0.894 0.904 0.833Item 9 I have been discriminated against because I have difficulty

speaking English.0.907 0.887 0.884 0.913 0.915 0.862

Item 10 Since I don’t speak English well, people have treated me rudelyor unfairly.

0.920 0.692 0.748 0.702 0.695 0.699

Item 11 I feel pressure to learn English. 0.731 0.759 0.755 0.753 0.784 0.683Item 12 It bothers me that I speak English with an accent. 0.741 0.844 0.866 0.825 0.853 0.835Item 13 I have a hard time understanding others when they speak

English.0.837 0.763 0.753 0.687 0.683 0.751

Item 14 I feel uncomfortable being around people who only speakEnglish.

0.663 0.868 0.873 0.894 0.904 0.833

Item 15 It bothers me when people pressure me to assimilate to theAmerican ways of doing things.

0.626 0.655 0.683 0.631 0.641 0.626

Item 16 It bothers me when people don’t respect my family’s culturalvalues.

0.315 0.251 0.280 0.303 0.298 0.235

Item 17 Because of my cultural background, I have a hard time fitting inwith White Americans.

0.803 0.791 0.816 0.794 0.808 0.782

Item 18 I feel uncomfortable when others expect me to know Americanways of doing things.

0.780 0.804 0.810 0.790 0.799 0.765

Item 19 I don’t feel accepted by White Americans. 0.766 0.797 0.789 0.779 0.789 0.763Item 20 I feel uncomfortable when I have to choose between my family’s

heritage culture and American ways of doing things.0.694 0.626 0.718 0.645 0.688 0.602

Item 2 People look down upon me if I practice customs from myfamily’s heritage culture.

0.799 0.743 0.823 0.749 0.779 0.764

Pressure against acculturationItem 22 I have had conflicts with others because I prefer American

customs over those from my family’s heritage culture.0.788 0.736 0.794 0.751 0.766 0.764

Item 23 People look down upon me if I practice American customs. 0.874 0.828 0.887 0.837 0.850 0.866Item 24 I feel uncomfortable when others expect me to know the ways of

doing things in my family’s heritage culture.0.742 0.715 0.769 0.723 0.724 0.764

Item 25 I feel uncomfortable because my family members do not knowthe ways of doing things from their heritage culture.

0.780 0.706 0.762 0.741 0.732 0.779

Note. The factor loading estimates were from the confirmatory factor analysis model fitted to each demographic group.



4 CASTILLO ET AL.

four-factor model, as established by Rodriguez et al. (2002), wasevaluated. For Step 2, a series of factorial invariance tests was con-ducted to examine the model across the groups. In Step 3, given theresults of factorial invariance tests, factor means were comparedacross groups. All analyses were conducted with using Mplus 6(Muthén & Muthén, 2010). The proportion of missing data wasapproximately 7% for all items. Cases with missing values for all 25items were excluded for analyses. Full-information maximum likeli-hood estimation was used to estimate parameters and to handle caseswith missing data on some of the items.The fit of each factor model was determined based on four

commonly used fit indexes in structural equation modeling: (a)chi-square test with statistical significance defined as p # .05;(b) the comparative fit index (CFI); (c) the root mean square ofapproximation (RMSEA); and (d) the standardized root meansquared residual (SRMR). The chi-square test evaluates the null

hypothesis of perfect fit to the data and is often overpowered(Kline, 2010). Most of the other fit indexes evaluate approxi-mate or close fit of a model to the data and are not affected bysample size. We used the Hu and Bentler (1999) recommenda-tions for assessing model fit. CFI values above .90 and .95indicate adequate and excellent model fit, respectively. SRMRvalues below .08 are typically considered to reflect reasonablemodel fit. RMSEA values below .05 indicated a good fit of amodel to data and the values below .08 could be deemedreasonable (Browne & Cudeck, 1993).In testing the factorial invariance model, we compared a model

with all factor loadings free to vary (the unconstrained model) againsta model with each factor loading set equal across gender, ethnicity, ornativity status. To compare the fit of these models to the data, we usedchi-square difference tests, along with differences inCFI and RMSEA,as suggested by Cheung and Rensvold (2002). A statistically signif-

Table 4Factor Correlations from the Final Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model for Each Group

1. Heritage LanguageCompetence Pressure

2. EnglishCompetence Pressure

3. Pressureto Acculturate

4. Pressure AgainstAcculturation

Ethnicitya1 — .457 .297 .5762 .352 — .661 .6603 .319 .632 — .7474 .639 .592 .705 —

Genderb1 — .503 .395 .6352 .369 — .721 .6943 .277 .608 — .7874 .588 .579 .689 —

Nativityc1 — .449 .317 .5902 .564 — .595 .6093 .444 .731 — .7114 .702 .674 .762 —

a Upper diagonal: Latino; Lower diagonal: Asian American. b Upper diagonal: Men; Lower diagonal:Women. c Upper diagonal: U.S.-born; Lower diagonal: foreign-born.

Table 5Measurement Invariance Test Results

"2 df RMSEA CFI SRMR $"2 $df $RMSEA $CFI $SRMR

EthnicityConfigural 4343.215!! 536 .072 .912 .062Metric 4417.858!! 557 .071 .911 .063 74.643!! 21 %.001 %.001 .001Scalar 4495.161!! 578 .070 .910 .064 77.303!! 21 %.001 %.001 .001Strict 4758.261!! 603 .071 .904 .065 263.100!! 25 .001 %.006 .001

GenderConfigural 4270.324!! 536 .071 .914 .059Metric 4321.840!! 557 .070 .913 .060 51.516!! 21 %.001 %.001 .001Scalar 4390.031!! 578 .070 .912 .060 68.191!! 21 .000 %.001 .000Strict 4590.078!! 603 .070 .908 .062 200.047!! 25 .000 %.004 .002

NativityConfigural 4103.488!! 536 .070 .918 .057Metric 4127.025!! 557 .068 .918 .057 23.537 21 %.002 .000 .000Scalar 4471.558!! 578 .070 .910 .060 344.533!! 21 .002 %.008 .003Strict 5774.333!! 603 .079 .881 .068 1302.78!! 25 .009 %.029 .008

Note. $ represents the difference between the less restricted model and the more restricted model. For example, the score on the top of the column of$"2 indicates the difference of "2 of the configural invariant model from the "2 of the metric invariant model.!! p # .01.




icant chi-square difference indicates that at least one factor loading issignificantly different across gender, ethnicity, or nativity status. Thenull hypothesis of invariance would be statistically rejected if $CFI!.01 and $RMSEA ! .015.

Results

Single Group Confirmatory Factor AnalysisThe same correlated four-factor model in Rodriguez et al.

(2002) was fitted to each of six groups (i.e., Latino, Asian Amer-ican, men, women, U.S.-born, and foreign-born). The fit indicesfor the initial model are summarized in Table 2. Although thechi-square statistics of all subgroups were statistically signifi-cant, all other fit statistics indicated acceptable model fit (ex-cept that the CFI was marginal in the Asian American andwomen). The modification index suggests that the unique vari-ances of Item 1 one and Item 4 should be correlated. Byinspecting the pair of items (Item 1: “I don’t speak my family’sheritage language or don’t speak it well” and Item 4: “I have ahard time understanding others when they speak my family’sheritage language”), it was hypothesized that they might have ashared variance that is not shared by other variables, so the

residuals of Item 1 and Item 4 were correlated in an alternativemodel to achieve a reasonable model fit for all Groups The finalmodel showed that all fit indices were improved and supporteda good fit of the alternative model to the data. Thus, the finalmodel served as the baseline model for the following measure-ment invariance tests. The standardized factor-loading esti-mates of the final model for each group are presented in Table3. In addition, the pairwise correlations between each pair of thefour factors are shown in Table 4.

Measurement Invariance TestsA series of multiple-group confirmatory factor models were fit

to the data, from the least restrictive model (i.e., configural invari-ance model) to the most restrictive model (i.e., strict invariancemodel). Configural invariance provides information as to whetherresearch participants from different groups use the same concep-tual framework to answer a specific test item. It is evaluated byexamining the degree to which the pattern of factor loadings is thesame across the groups.Metric invariance provides information onwhether scale items are being interpreted in the same way acrossdifferent groups. It is evaluated by assessing the degree to which

Figure 1. Unstandardized parameter estimates of the strict invariance model for the ethnic groups. Note. &i,j:factor loading of the jth item for the ith factor; 'i,j: intercept of the jth item for the ith factor; (i,j: unique varianceof the jth item for the ith factor. The standard error of each parameter is shown in the parenthesis next to theparameter.



6 CASTILLO ET AL.

the items relate to their corresponding factors in an equivalentmanner across the groups. Scalar invariance is evaluated by as-sessing the equivalence of item intercepts and provides an indica-tion of the value of the item when the common factor is zero(Bontempo & Hofer, 2007). Strict invariance was examined byassessing whether error variances for all the items are equal acrossgroups.Table 5 shows the results of measurement invariance tests

between Latino and Asian American, between men and women,and between U.S.-born and foreign-born participants, separately.Although all the changes in chi-square fit statistics were significantbetween the adjacent invariance models, changes in other fit indi-ces (e.g., CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR) were negligible except forthose between scalar and strict models in the nativity condition. Inaddition, the fit statistics of strict invariance model indicated areasonable fit in ethnicity and gender group conditions and poor fitin the nativity group condition. Therefore, we concluded that strictinvariance was tenable between men and women and betweenLatino and Asian American participants, whereas scalar invariancewas met between the U.S.-born and foreign-born participants.Because scalar invariance was supported for all comparisongroups, we proceeded with tests of factor-mean difference between

groups under study. Figures 1, 2, and 3 show the unstandardizedparameter estimates of the finally specified measurement invari-ance model of the ethnic, gender, and nativity groups, respectively.

Group Differences in Latent Factor MeansTo test the significance of group differences, we estimated

factor means in the finally specified factorial invariance model.That is, the factor means of the ethnic and gender groups wereestimated in the strict invariance model whereas those of thenativity groups were estimated in the scalar invariance model. Thefactor means were fixed at zero for a reference group (i.e., Latinosfor ethnic group comparisons, women for gender group compari-sons, and U.S.-born for nativity comparisons), and the factormeans in the other groups were estimated. As shown in Table 6, allthe estimated factor-mean differences were statistically significantfor each pair of comparisons. To be more specific, Asian Americanparticipants tended to have higher levels of acculturation stressacross all four factors than Latinos. Women had lower levels ofacculturation stress across all factors than men. Interestingly,foreign-born participants tended to experience lower levels ofHeritage Language Competence Stress and had higher levels of

Figure 2. Unstandardized parameter estimates of the strict invariance model for the gender groups. Note. &i,j:factor loading of the jth item for the ith factor; 'i,j: intercept of the jth item for the ith factor; (i,j: unique varianceof the jth item for the ith factor. The standard error of each parameter is shown in the parenthesis next to theparameter.




English Competence Pressure, Pressure to Acculturate, and Pres-sure against Acculturation than U.S.-born participants.

DiscussionThe goal of the present study was to investigate the factors and

the factorial invariance of the MASI. The current study contributesto empirical research in several ways. First, we compared theequivalence across demographic variables known to be associated

with acculturative stress: ethnicity, gender, and nativity status.Second, we used a national sample. Finally, we could find nocomparable studies that have assessed for measurement equiva-lence of the MASI.Results of the study supported MASI’s original four-factor

structure with a minor modification (i.e., one unique-variancecorrelation). This finding supports Rodriguez et al.’s (2002) con-tention that acculturative stress has multiple factors. Furthermore,

Figure 3. Unstandardized parameter estimates of the scalar invariance model for the nativity groups. Note. &i,j:factor loading of the jth item for the ith factor; 'i,j: intercept of the jth item for the ith factor; i,j

U : U.S.-born group’sunique variance of the jth item for the ith factor; i,j

F : Foreign-born group’s unique variance of the jth item for theith factor. The standard error of each parameter is shown in the parenthesis next to the parameter.

Table 6Estimated Factor Means in the Finally Specified Measurement Invariance Model

Factor

Ethnicity Gender Nativity

Latino Asian American Men Women U.S.-born Foreign-bornPE (SE) PE (SE) PE (SE) PE (SE) PE (SE) PE (SE)

Heritage Language Competence Pressure .000 (.000) .169 (.040)!! .000 (.000) %.224 (.044)!! .000 (.000) %.393 (.044)!!

English Competence Pressure .000 (.000) .204 (.041)!! .000 (.000) %.222 (.042)!! .000 (.000) .556 (.052)!!

Pressure to Acculturate .000 (.000) .307 (.041)!! .000 (.000) %.099 (.044)!! .000 (.000) .333 (.045)!!

Pressure Against Acculturation .000 (.000) .312 (.041)!! .000 (.000) %.148 (.044)!! .000 (.000) .124 (.046)!!

Note. PE ! parameter estimates of factor mean; SE ! standard error of the estimated factor mean.!! p # .01.



8 CASTILLO ET AL.

acculturative stress is experienced by both U.S.-born and foreign-born individuals. It should be noted that the final model includedcorrelating the residuals of Item 1 (“I don’t speak my family’sheritage language or don’t speak it well”) and Item 4 (“I have ahard time understanding others when they speak my family’sheritage language”) in the English Competency Pressure subscale.This finding is not surprising given the similarity in wording of theitems.Tests of factorial invariance provided reasonable evidence of

measurement equivalence of acculturative stress scores across menand women of Latino and Asian American heritage as well as forU.S.-born and foreign-born participants. This finding indicates thatthe MASI may be measuring the same constructs for all compar-ison groups, and that the groups likely share a common frame ofreference for acculturative stress. Analyses of metric invarianceindicated that the factor loadings of each item were equivalentacross ethnic group and gender. This finding suggests that, regard-less of ethnicity or gender, respondents interpreted MASI itemssimilarly. Also, achieving this level of invariance reduces theprobability of misclassifying the degree of acculturative stress(Crockett, Randall, Shen, Russell, & Driscoll, 2005). Analyses ofscalar invariance indicated that the intercepts of each item on thelatent factors were equivalent across gender, ethnic group, andnativity. This finding suggests that respondents may have the samestarting point with regard to levels of acculturative stress. Analysesof strict invariance indicated that the items are equally preciseacross gender and ethnicity. Thus, one may be able to compareobserved scores for each factor across groups without bias (Mer-edith & Teresi, 2006).Examination of the differences on the factor means showed

interesting results. As supported in previous research (Gomez etal., 2011), Asian American participants reported higher accultura-tive stress than Latino participants. Foreign-born participants re-ported higher acculturative stress but only from English Compe-tency Pressure, Pressure to Acculturate, and Pressure againstAcculturation. U.S.-born participants reported high acculturativestress due to Heritage Language Competency Pressure thanforeign-born participants. This finding provides evidence that ac-culturative stress is not limited to foreign-born individuals.It is interesting to note that men reported statistically significant

higher acculturative stress than women across three out of the fourfactors. This finding is contrary to previous research that suggestswomen experience more acculturative stress than men (Gomez etal., 2011). A recent study found that for Latino men being moreacculturated was associated with more pressure to be competent inSpanish as well as feeling pressure against acculturation (Castilloet al., in press). Future research should examine how genderdifferences in acculturation levels influence the experience ofacculturative stress.The findings should be interpreted in light of some limitations.

First, the MASI was not empirically compared to other measuresof acculturative stress to establish concurrent validity of the testscore. Other measures may include aspects of acculturative stressthat are not present in the MASI conceptual model. Second, as noinformation was collected on ethnic subgroups (e.g., MexicanAmerican), analyses of invariance were limited to pan-ethnicgroups (i.e., Latinos and Asian Americans). Thus, the measure-ment equivalency of the MASI with specific Latino and AsianAmericans subgroups is not known. Ethnic subgroups may re-

spond differently to acculturative stress given their variable historyin the United States and reason for emigration. Third, the samplewas limited to college students. Latino and Asian American col-lege students may have their acculturative stress heighten giventheir attendance at predominately White universities. Therefore,findings may not generalize outside this population or to individ-uals without a tertiary education. Because the study was cross-sectional, future studies should investigate the reliability of theMASI test scores across time. Although the findings suggest thatthere may be cross-group applicability in the MASI’s four dimen-sions of acculturative stress, there are other salient variables suchas trauma (Fortuna, Porche, & Alegriía, 2008), socioeconomicstatus (Cervantes, Fisher, Córdova, & Napper, 2012), and reasonfor migration (e.g., economic, political, etc.; Cervantes et al.,2012) that also influences acculturative stress. Thus, socioculturalcontext must be taken into account when studying acculturativestress across different ethnic groups.Despite the limitations discussed, the findings make meaningful

contributions to the measurement of acculturative stress. Thisstudy found that the MASI established strict invariance acrossgender and ethnic groups. This finding is significant because thislevel of invariance is considered by many researchers the mostdifficult to achieve (Meredith & Teresi, 2006). By establishingmeasurement equivalence of the MASI, the utility of this measurecan be expanded to examine culture specific stress among two ofthe largest ethnic minorities groups in the United States. Research-ers can be confident that the MASI operationalizes acculturativestress in an equivalent manner across Latino and Asian Americangroups, gender, and nativity.

ReferencesBontempo, D. E., & Hofer, S. M. (2007). Assessing factorial invariance incross-sectional and longitudinal studies. In A. D. Ong & M. H. M. vanDulmen (Eds.), Oxford handbook of methods in positive psychology (pp.153–175). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing modelfit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equationmodels (pp. 136–162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Castillo, L. G., Conoley, C. W., & Brossart, D. F. (2004). Acculturation,White marginalization, and family support as predictors of perceiveddistress in Mexican American female college students. Journal of Coun-seling Psychology, 51, 151–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.2.151

Castillo, L. G., Conoley, C. W., Brossart, D. F., & Quiros, A. E. (2007).Construction and validation of the intragroup marginalization inventory.Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 232–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.13.3.232

Castillo, L. G., Navarro, R. L., Walker, J. E., Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga,B. L., Whitbourne, S. K., . . . Caraway, J. (in press). Gender matters: Theinfluence of acculturation and acculturative stress on Latino collegestudent depressive symptomatology. Journal of Latina/o Psychology.

Castillo, L. G., Zahn, M. P., & Cano, M. A. (2012). Predictors of familialacculturative stress in Asian American college students. [Advance onlinepublication]. Journal of College Counseling, 15, 52–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2012.00005.x

Cervantes, R. C., Fisher, D. G., Córdova, D., Jr., & Napper, L. E. (2012).The Hispanic Stress Inventory—Adolescent Version: A culturally in-formed psychosocial assessment. Psychological Assessment, 24, 187–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025280




Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fitindices for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Model-ing, 9, 233–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

Constantine, M. G., Okazaki, S., & Utsey, S. O. (2004). Self-concealment,social self-efficacy, acculturative stress, and depression in African,Asian, and Latin American international college students. AmericanJournal of Orthopsychiatry, 74, 230–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.74.3.230

Crockett, L. J., Randall, B. A., Shen, Y. L., Russell, S. T., & Driscoll, A. K.(2005). Measurement equivalence of the center for epidemiologicalstudies depression scale for Latino and Anglo adolescents: A nationalstudy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 47–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.1.47

Fortuna, L. R., Porche, M. V., & Alegria, M. (2008). Political violence,psychosocial trauma, and the context of mental health services useamong immigrant Latinos in the United States. Ethnicity & Health, 13,435–463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13557850701837286

French, B. F., & Finch, W. H. (2006). Confirmatory factor analytic pro-cedures for the determination of measurement invariance. StructuralEquation Modeling, 13, 378 – 402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1303_3

Fuertes, J. N., & Westbrook, F. D. (1996). Using the Social, Attitudinal,Familial, and Environmental (S. A. F. E.) Acculturation Stress Scale toassess the adjustment needs of Hispanic college students. Measurementand Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 29, 67–76.

Gomez, J., Miranda, R., & Polanco, L. (2011). Acculturative stress, per-ceived discrimination, and vulnerability to suicide attempts amongemerging adults. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 1465–1476.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9688-9

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariancestructure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc-tural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Kimbro, R. T., Gorman, B. K., & Schachter, A. (2012). Acculturation andself-rated health among Latino and Asian immigrants to the UnitedStates. Social Problems, 59, 341–363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sp.2012.59.3.341

Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation mod-eling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Lueck, K., & Wilson, M. (2011). Acculturative stress in Latino immi-grants: The impact of social, socio-psychological and migration-relatedfactors. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 186–195.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.11.016

Meredith, W., & Teresi, J. A. (2006). An essay on measurement andfactorial invariance. Medical Care, 44(Suppl 3), S69–S77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000245438.73837.89

Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2010). MPLUS user’s guide (6th ed.).Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.

Rodriguez, N., Myers, H. F., Mira, C. B., Flores, T., & Garcia-Hernandez,L. (2002). Development of the Multidimensional Acculturative StressInventory for adults of Mexican origin. Psychological Assessment, 14,451–461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.14.4.451

Sandhu, D. S., & Asrabadi, B. R. (1994). Development of an acculturativestress scale for international students: Preliminary findings. Psycholog-ical Reports, 75, 435–448. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1994.75.1.435

Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Zamboanga, B. L., & Szapocznik, J. (2010).Rethinking the concept of acculturation: Implications for theory andresearch. American Psychologist, 65, 237–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019330

Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurementinvariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 25, 78–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209528

Torres, L., Driscoll, M. W., & Voell, M. (2012). Discrimination, accultur-ation, acculturative stress, and Latino psychological distress: A moder-ated mediational model. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psy-chology, 18, 17–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026710

Tummala-Narra, P., Alegria, M., & Chen, C. (2012). Perceived discrimi-nation, acculturative stress, and depression among South Asians: Mixedfindings. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 3, 3–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024661

Weisskirch, R. S., Kim, S. Y., Zamboanga, B. L., Schwartz, S. J., Ber-samin, M., & Umaña-Taylor, A. J. (2011). Cultural influences forcollege student language brokers. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minor-ity Psychology, 17, 43–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021665

Weisskirch, R. S., Zamboanga, B. L., Ravert, R. D., Whitbourne, S. K.,Park, I., Lee, R. M., . . . Schwartz, S. J. (2013). An introduction to thecomposition of the Multi-Site University Study of Identity and Culture(MUSIC): A collaborative approach to research and mentorship. Cul-tural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 19, 123–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030099

Wrobel, N. H., Farrag, M. F., & Hymes, R. W. (2009). Acculturative stressand depression in an elderly Arabic sample. Journal of Cross-CulturalGerontology, 24, 273–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10823-009-9096-8

Received February 27, 2014Revision received December 18, 2014

Accepted January 6, 2015 !



10 CASTILLO ET AL.

Documents

Factor Structure and Factorial Invariance of the Multidimensional …qhuynh/PDFs/PA2015.pdf · 2015. 3. 4. · Miami University Que-Lam Huynh California State University-Northridge