Designing studies that use latent growth modeling to investigate change over time calls for optimal approaches for conducting power analysis for a priori determination of required sample size. This investigation (1) studied the impacts of variations in specified parameters, design features, and model misspecification in simulation-based power analyses and (2) compared power estimates across three common power analysis techniques: the Monte Carlo method; the Satorra-Saris method; and the method developed by MacCallum, Browne, and Cai (MBC). Choice of sample size, effect size, and slope variance parameters markedly influenced power estimates; however, level-1 error variance and number of repeated measures (3 vs. 6) when study length was held constant had little impact on resulting power. Under some conditions, having a moderate versus small effect size or using a sample size of 800 versus 200 increased power by approximately .40, and a slope variance of 10 versus 20 increased power by up to .24. Decreasing error variance from 100 to 50, however, increased power by no more than .09 and increasing measurement occasions from 3 to 6 increased power by no more than .04. Misspecification in level-1 error structure had little influence on power, whereas misspecifying the form of the growth model as linear rather than quadratic dramatically reduced power for detecting differences in slopes. Additionally, power estimates based on the Monte Carlo and Satorra-Saris techniques never differed by more than .03, even with small sample sizes, whereas power estimates for the MBC technique appeared quite discrepant from the other two techniques. Results suggest the choice between using the Satorra-Saris or Monte Carlo technique in a priori power analyses for slope differences in latent growth models is a matter of preference, although features such as missing data can only be considered within the Monte Carlo approach. Further, researchers conducting power analyses for slope differences in latent growth models should pay greatest attention to estimating slope difference, slope variance, and sample size. Arguments are also made for examining model-implied covariance matrices based on estimated parameters and graphic depictions of slope variance to help ensure parameter estimates are reasonable in a priori power analysis.

Although the issue of factorial invariance has received increasing attention in the literature, the focus is typically on differences in factor structure across groups that are directly observed, such as those denoted by sex or ethnicity. While establishing factorial invariance across observed groups is a requisite step in making meaningful cross-group comparisons, failure to attend to possible sources of latent class heterogeneity in the form of class-based differences in factor structure has the potential to compromise conclusions with respect to observed groups and may result in misguided attempts at instrument development and theory refinement. The present studies examined the sensitivity of two widely used confirmatory factor analytic model fit indices, the chi-square test of model fit and RMSEA, to latent class differences in factor structure. Two primary questions were addressed. The first of these concerned the impact of latent class differences in factor loadings with respect to model fit in a single sample reflecting a mixture of classes. The second question concerned the impact of latent class differences in configural structure on tests of factorial invariance across observed groups. The results suggest that both indices are highly insensitive to class-based differences in factor loadings. Across sample size conditions, models with medium (0.2) sized loading differences were rejected by the chi-square test of model fit at rates just slightly higher than the nominal .05 rate of rejection that would be expected under a true null hypothesis. While rates of rejection increased somewhat when the magnitude of loading difference increased, even the largest sample size with equal class representation and the most extreme violations of loading invariance only had rejection rates of approximately 60%. RMSEA was also insensitive to class-based differences in factor loadings, with mean values across conditions suggesting a degree of fit that would generally be regarded as exceptionally good in practice. In contrast, both indices were sensitive to class-based differences in configural structure in the context of a multiple group analysis in which each observed group was a mixture of classes. However, preliminary evidence suggests that this sensitivity may contingent on the form of the cross-group model misspecification.

For this thesis a Monte Carlo simulation was conducted to investigate the robustness of three latent interaction modeling approaches (constrained product indicator, generalized appended product indicator (GAPI), and latent moderated structural equations (LMS)) under high degrees of nonnormality of the exogenous indicators, which have not been investigated in previous literature. Results showed that the constrained product indicator and LMS approaches yielded biased estimates of the interaction effect when the exogenous indicators were highly nonnormal. When the violation of nonnormality was not severe (symmetric with excess kurtosis < 1), the LMS approach with ML estimation yielded the most precise latent interaction effect estimates. The LMS approach with ML estimation also had the highest statistical power among the three approaches, given that the actual Type-I error rates of the Wald and likelihood ratio test of interaction effect were acceptable. In highly nonnormal conditions, only the GAPI approach with ML estimation yielded unbiased latent interaction effect estimates, with an acceptable actual Type-I error rate of both the Wald test and likelihood ratio test of interaction effect. No support for the use of the Satorra-Bentler or Yuan-Bentler ML corrections was found across all three methods.

In the past, it has been assumed that measurement and predictive invariance are consistent so that if one form of invariance holds the other form should also hold. However, some studies have proven that both forms of invariance only hold under certain conditions such as factorial invariance and invariance in the common factor variances. The present research examined Type I errors and the statistical power of a method that detects violations to the factorial invariant model in the presence of group differences in regression intercepts, under different sample sizes and different number of predictors (one or two). Data were simulated under two models: in model A only differences in the factor means were allowed, while model B violated invariance. A factorial invariant model was fitted to the data. Type I errors were defined as the proportion of samples in which the hypothesis of invariance was incorrectly rejected, and statistical power was defined as the proportion of samples in which the hypothesis of factorial invariance was correctly rejected. In the case of one predictor, the results show that the chi-square statistic has low power to detect violations to the model. Unexpected and systematic results were obtained regarding the negative unique variance in the predictor. It is proposed that negative unique variance in the predictor can be used as indication of measurement bias instead of the chi-square fit statistic with sample sizes of 500 or more. The results of the two predictor case show larger power. In both cases Type I errors were as expected. The implications of the results and some suggestions for increasing the power of the method are provided.