Detailed Information on Publication Record
2022
The Necessity of Testing Measurement Invariance in Cross-Cultural Research: Potential Bias in Cross-Cultural Comparisons With Individualism– Collectivism Self-Report Scales
LACKO, David, Jiří ČENĚK, Jaroslav TOČÍK, Andreja AVSEC, Vladimir ĐORĐEVIĆ et. al.Basic information
Original name
The Necessity of Testing Measurement Invariance in Cross-Cultural Research: Potential Bias in Cross-Cultural Comparisons With Individualism– Collectivism Self-Report Scales
Authors
LACKO, David, Jiří ČENĚK, Jaroslav TOČÍK, Andreja AVSEC, Vladimir ĐORĐEVIĆ, Ana GENC, Fajtona HAKA, Jelena ŠAKOTIĆ-KURBALIJA, Tamara MOHORIĆ, Ibrahim NEZIRI and Siniša SUBOTIĆ
Edition
Cross-Cultural Research, 2022, 1069-3971
Other information
Language
English
Type of outcome
Článek v odborném periodiku
Field of Study
50101 Psychology
Country of publisher
Czech Republic
Confidentiality degree
není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství
References:
Impact factor
Impact factor: 2.500
UT WoS
999
Keywords in English
Cross-cultural research; measurement invariance; equivalence; individualism and collectivism; scalar invariance
Tags
International impact, Reviewed
Změněno: 23/4/2022 13:14, Mgr. David Lacko, Ph.D.
Abstract
V originále
Individualism and collectivism are some of the most widely applied concepts in cultural and cross-cultural research. They are commonly applied by scholars who use arithmetic means or sum indexes of items on a scale to examine the potential similarities and differences in samples from various countries. For many reasons, cross-cultural research implicates numerous methodological and statistical pitfalls. The aim of this article is to summarize some of those pitfalls, particularly the problem of measurement non-invariance, which stems from the different understandings of questionnaire items or even different character of constructs between countries. This potential bias is reduced by latent mean comparisons performed with Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis and the Measurement Invariance procedure within a Structural Equation Modeling framework. These procedures have been neglected by many researchers in the field of cross-cultural psychology, however. In this article, we compare ‘traditional’ (comparison of arithmetic means) and ‘invariant’ (latent mean comparison) approaches and provide necessary R source codes for replications of measurement invariance and latent mean comparisons within other scales. Both approaches are demonstrated with real data gathered on an Independent and Interdependent Self-Scale from 1386 participants across six countries (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Macedonia and Albania). Our results revealed considerable differences between the ‘invariant’ and ‘traditional’ approaches, especially in post-hoc analyses. Since ‘invariant’ results can be considered less biased, this finding suggests that the currently prevalent method of comparing the arithmetic means of cross-cultural scales of individualism and collectivism can potentially cause biased results.