scholarly journals Researching measurement equivalence in cross-cultural studies

Psihologija ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milos Kankaras ◽  
Guy Moors

In cross-cultural comparative studies it is essential to establish equivalent measurement of relevant constructs across cultures. If this equivalence is not confirmed it is difficult if not impossible to make meaningful comparison of results across countries. This work presents concept of measurement equivalence, its relationship with other related concepts, different equivalence levels and causes of inequivalence in cross-cultural research. It also reviews three main approaches to the analysis of measurement equivalence - multigroup confirmatory factor analysis, differential item functioning, and multigroup latent class analysis - with special emphasis on their similarities and differences, as well as comparative advantages.

Author(s):  
Fons J.R. Van de Vijver ◽  
Jia He

Bias and equivalence provide a framework for methodological aspects of cross-cultural studies. Bias is a generic term for any systematic errors in the measurement that endanger the comparability of cross-cultural data; bias results in invalid comparative conclusions. The demonstration of equivalence (i.e., absence of bias) is a prerequisite for any cross-cultural comparison. Based on the source of incomparability, three types of bias, namely construct, method, and item bias, can be distinguished. Correspondingly, three levels of equivalence, namely, construct, metric, and scalar equivalence, can be distinguished. One of the goals in cross-cultural research is to minimize bias and enhance comparability. The definitions and manifestations of these types of bias and equivalence are described and remedies to minimize bias and enhance equivalence at the design, implementation, and statistical analysis phases of a cross-cultural study are provided. These strategies involve different research features (e.g., decentering and convergence), extensive pilot and pretesting, and various statistical procedures to demonstration of different levels of equivalence and detections of bias (e.g., factor analysis based approaches and differential item functioning analysis). The implications of bias and equivalence also extend to instrument adaptation and combining etic and emic approaches to maximize the ecological validity. Instrument choices in cross-cultural research and the categorization of adaptations stemming from considerations of the concept, culture, language, and measurement are outlined. Examples from cross-cultural research of personality are highlighted to illustrate the importance of combining etic and emic approaches. The professionalization and broadening of the field is expected to increase the validity of conclusions regarding cross-cultural similarities and differences.


2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 391-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Zhou ◽  
Yanjie Su

In this article, we first review cross-cultural research, especially that concerning similarities and differences between East Asian and Western cultures, on creativity using laboratory tasks and tests. On the basis of this review, we then propose some directions for future cross-cultural research on creativity in the workplace. We emphasize the need to theorize why cultural differences make a difference in creativity and directly investigate, rather than assume, effects of contextual factors on creativity. In this regard, two literatures on creativity – cross-cultural studies using laboratory tasks and organizational studies of employee creativity – can benefit tremendously from integration. We also call for more empirical research examining effects of culture on creativity in the workplace, especially in China.


Author(s):  
Thanh V. Tran ◽  
Tam Nguyen ◽  
Keith Chan

A cross-cultural comparison can be misleading for two reasons: (1) comparison is made using different attributes and (2) comparison is made using different scale units. This chapter illustrates multiple statistical approaches to evaluating the cross-cultural equivalence of the research instruments: data distribution of the items of the research instrument, the patterns of responses of each item, the corrected item–total correlation, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and reliability analysis using the parallel test and tau-equivalence test. Equivalence is the fundamental issue in cross-cultural research and evaluation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-24
Author(s):  
Kamal Fatehi ◽  
Jennifer L Priestley ◽  
Gita Taasoobshirazi

Recent research to analyze and discuss cultural differences has employed a combination of five major dimensions of individualism–collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, femininity–masculinity (gender role differentiation), and long-term orientation. Among these dimensions, individualism–collectivism has received the most attention. Chronologically, this cultural attribute has been regarded as one, then two, and more recently, four dimensions of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. However, research on this issue has not been conclusive and some have argued against this expansion. The current study attempts to explain and clarify this discussion by using a shortened version of the scale developed by Singelis et al. ((1995) Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: a theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research 29(3): 240–275). Our analysis of aggregate data from 802 respondents from nine countries supports the expanded view. Data aggregation was based on the Mindscape Theory that proposes inter- and intracultural heterogeneity. This finding is reassuring to scholars who have been using the shortened version of the instrument because confirmatory factor analysis indicated its validity. The findings of the present study provides clarification of some apparent ambiguity in recent research in specifying some cultures such as India, Israel, and Spain as individualists or collectivists. By separating the four constructs, more nuanced classification is possible. Also, such a distinction enables us to entertain such concepts as the Mindscape Theory that proposes a unique intracultural and transcultural heterogeneity that do not stereotype the whole culture as either individualist or collectivist.


Methodology ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 159-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meike Morren ◽  
John Gelissen ◽  
Jeroen Vermunt

Prior research has shown that extreme response style can seriously bias responses to survey questions and that this response style may differ across culturally diverse groups. Consequently, cross-cultural differences in extreme responding may yield incomparable responses when not controlled for. To examine how extreme responding affects the cross-cultural comparability of survey responses, we propose and apply a multiple-group latent class approach where groups are compared on basis of the factor loadings, intercepts, and factor means in a Latent Class Factor Model. In this approach a latent factor measuring the response style is explicitly included as an explanation for group differences found in the data. Findings from two empirical applications that examine the cross-cultural comparability of measurements show that group differences in responding import inequivalence in measurements among groups. Controlling for the response style yields more equivalent measurements. This finding emphasizes the importance of correcting for response style in cross-cultural research.


2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taciano L. Milfont ◽  
Ronald Fischer

Researchers often compare groups of individuals on psychological variables. When comparing groups an assumption is made that the instrument measures the same psychological construct in all groups. If this assumption holds, the comparisons are valid and differences/similarities between groups can be meaningfully interpreted. If this assumption does not hold, comparisons and interpretations are not fully meaningful. The establishment of measurement invariance is a prerequisite for meaningful comparisons across groups. This paper first reviews the importance of equivalence in psychological research, and then the main theoretical and methodological issues regarding measurement invariance within the framework of confirmatory factor analysis. A step-by-step empirical example of measurement invariance testing is provided along with syntax examples for fitting such models in LISREL.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document