Structural equation modeling is potentially useful for assessing mean differences between groups on latent variables (i.e., factors). However, to evaluate these differences accurately, the parameters of the indicators of these latent variables must be specified correctly. The focus of the current research is on the specification of between-group equality constraints on the loadings and intercepts of indicators. These equality constraints are referred to as invariance constraints. Previous simulation studies in this area focused on fitting a particular model to data that were generated to have various levels and patterns of non-invariance. Results from these studies were interpreted from a viewpoint of assumption violation rather than model misspecification. In contrast, the current study investigated analysis models with varying number of invariance constraints given data that were generated based on a model with indicators that were invariant, partially invariant, or non-invariant. More broadly, the current simulation study was conducted to examine the effect of correctly or incorrectly imposing invariance constraints as well as correctly or incorrectly not imposing invariance constraints on the assessment of factor mean differences. The results indicated that different types of analysis models yield different results in terms of Type I error rates, power, bias in estimation of factor mean difference, and model fit. Benefits and risks are associated with imposing or reducing invariance constraints on models. In addition, model fit or lack of fit can lead to wrong decisions concerning invariance constraints.