1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Sociology
  4. Volume 40, 2014
  5. Article

Annual Review of Sociology

Volume 40, 2014

Measurement Equivalence in Cross-National Research

Abstract

Determining whether people in certain countries score differently in measurements of interest or whether concepts relate differently to each other across nations can indisputably assist in testing theories and advancing our sociological knowledge. However, meaningful comparisons of means or relationships between constructs within and across nations require equivalent measurements of these constructs. This is especially true for subjective attributes such as values, attitudes, opinions, or behavior. In this review, we first discuss the concept of cross-group measurement equivalence, look at possible sources of nonequivalence, and suggest ways to prevent it. Next, we examine the social science methodological literature for ways to empirically test for measurement equivalence. Finally, we consider what may be done when equivalence is not supported by the data and conclude with a review of recent developments that offer exciting directions and solutions for future research in cross-national measurement equivalence assessment.

Keyword(s): cross-national comparisons, measurement invariance, subjective constructs
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043137
2014-07-30
2024-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/soc/40/1/annurev-soc-071913-043137.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043137&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Allum N, Read S, Sturgis P. 2011. Evaluating change in social and political trust in Europe. See Davidov et al. 2011b 35–53
  2. Ariely G, Davidov E. 2010. Can we rate public support for democracy in a comparable way? Cross-national equivalence of democratic attitudes in the World Value Survey. Soc. Indic. Res. 104:2271–86 [Google Scholar]
  3. Asparouhov T, Muthén BO. 2009. Exploratory structural equation modeling. Struct. Equ. Model. 16:397–438 [Google Scholar]
  4. Asparouhov T, Muthén BO. 2013. Multiple-group factor analysis alignment. Mplus Web Notes Number 18, Version 4, Oct. 1. http://www.statmodel.com/examples/webnotes/webnote18.pdf
  5. Bartholomew DJ, Knott M. 1999. Latent Variable Models and Factor Analysis London: Arnold
  6. Bartram D. 2013. Scalar equivalence of OPQ32: big five profiles of 31 countries. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 44:161–83 [Google Scholar]
  7. Behr D, Braun M, Kaczmirek L, Bandilla W. 2012. Item comparability in cross-national surveys: results from asking probing questions in cross-national web surveys about attitudes towards civil disobedience. Qual. Quant. 48:127–48 [Google Scholar]
  8. Berry JW, Poortinga YH, Segall MH, Dasen PR. 1992. Cross-Cultural Psychology: Research and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  9. Billiet J. 2003. Cross-cultural equivalence with structural equation modeling. See Harkness et al. 2003 247–64
  10. Billiet J. 2013. Quantitative methods with survey data in comparative research. A Handbook of Comparative Social Policy P Kennett 264–300 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  11. Billiet J, Koch A, Philippens M. 2007. Understanding and improving response rates. Measuring Attitudes Cross-Nationally: Lessons from the European Social Survey R Jowell, C Roberts, R Fitzgerald, G Eva 113–38 London: Sage [Google Scholar]
  12. Boeve-de Pauw J, Jacobs K, Van Petegem P. 2012. Gender differences in environmental values: an issue of measurement?. Environ. Behav. 46:3373–97 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bollen KA. 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables New York: Wiley
  14. Bollen KA. 2002. Latent variables in psychology and the social sciences. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 53:605–34 [Google Scholar]
  15. Braun M, Behr D, Kaczmirek L. 2012. Assessing cross-national equivalence of measures of xenophobia: evidence from probing in web surveys. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 25:3383–95 [Google Scholar]
  16. Braun M, Mohler PP. 2003. Background variables. See Harkness et al. 2003 101–16
  17. Braun M, Scott J. 1998. Multidimensional scaling and equivalence: Is having a job the same as working?. See Harkness 1998 129–44
  18. Brislin RW. 1986. The wording and translation of research instruments. Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research WJ Lonner, JW Berry 137–64 Beverly Hills, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
  19. Brown TA. 2006. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research New York: Guilford
  20. Byrne BM, Oakland T, Leong FTL, Van de Vijver FJR, Hambleton RK. et al. 2009. A critical analysis of cross-cultural research and testing practices: implications for improved education and training in psychology. Train. Educ. Prof. Psychol. 3:294–105 [Google Scholar]
  21. Byrne BM, Shavelson RJ, Muthén B. 1989. Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: the issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychol. Bull. 105:456–66 [Google Scholar]
  22. Byrne BM, Van de Vijver FJR. 2010. Testing for measurement and structural equivalence in large-scale cross-cultural studies: addressing the issue of nonequivalence. Int. J. Test. 10:107–32 [Google Scholar]
  23. Chen FF. 2007. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indices to lack of measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. 14:464–504 [Google Scholar]
  24. Chen FF. 2008. What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 95:51005–18 [Google Scholar]
  25. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. 2002. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. 9:233–55 [Google Scholar]
  26. Cheung MWL, Au K. 2005. Applications of multilevel structural equation modeling to cross-cultural research. Struct. Equ. Model. 12:4598–619 [Google Scholar]
  27. Cieciuch J, Davidov E. 2012. A comparison of the invariance properties of the PVQ-40 and the PVQ-21 to measure human values across German and Polish samples. Surv. Res. Methods 6:137–48 [Google Scholar]
  28. Coenders M, Lubbers M, Scheepers P. 2005. Majorities' attitudes towards minorities in Western and Eastern European societies: results from the European Social Survey 2002–2003 Rep. No. 4, Eur. Monit. Cent. Racism Xenophob., Vienna
  29. Collins M. 1980. Interviewer variability: a review of the problem. J. Market Res. Soc. 22:277–95 [Google Scholar]
  30. Couper MP, de Leeuw ED. 2003. Nonresponse in cross-cultural and cross-national surveys. See Harkness et al. 2003 157–78
  31. Davidov E. 2009. Measurement equivalence of nationalism and constructive patriotism in the ISSP: 34 countries in a comparative perspective. Polit. Anal. 17:164–82 [Google Scholar]
  32. Davidov E, Datler G, Schmidt P, Schwartz SH. 2011a. Testing the invariance of values in the Benelux countries with the European Social Survey: accounting for ordinality. See Davidov et al. 2011b 149–68
  33. Davidov E, De Beuckelaer A. 2010. How harmful are survey translations? A test with Schwartz's human values instrument. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 22:4485–510 [Google Scholar]
  34. Davidov E, Dülmer H, Schlüter E, Schmidt P, Meuleman B. 2012. Using a multilevel structural equation modeling approach to explain cross-cultural measurement noninvariance. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 43:4558–75 [Google Scholar]
  35. Davidov E, Schmidt P, Billiet J. 2011b. Cross-Cultural Analysis: Methods and Applications New York: Routledge
  36. Davidov E, Schmidt P, Schwartz SH. 2008. Bringing values back in: the adequacy of the European Social Survey to measure values in 20 countries. Public Opin. Q. 72:3420–45 [Google Scholar]
  37. De Beuckelaer A. 2005. Measurement invariance issues in international management research PhD Thesis, Limburgs Univ. Cent., Neth.
  38. De Beuckelaer A, Swinnen G. 2011. Biased latent variable mean comparisons due to measurement noninvariance: a simulation study. See Davidov et al. 2011b 117–47
  39. de Regt S, Smits T, Mortelmans D. 2011. Trends in authoritarianism: evidence from 31 European countries. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Hum. Stud. 3:1395–404 [Google Scholar]
  40. Drasgow F, Kanfer R. 1985. Equivalence of psychological measurement in heterogeneous populations. J. Appl. Psychol. 70:4662–80 [Google Scholar]
  41. Durkheim É. 1982 (1895). Les règles de la méthode sociologique [The rules of the sociological method], transl. WD Hall, ed. S Lukes. New York: Free Press [Google Scholar]
  42. Fitzgerald R, Widdop S, Gray M, Collins D. 2011. Identifying sources of error in cross-national questionnaires: application of an error source typology to cognitive interview data. J. Off. Stat. 27:569–99 [Google Scholar]
  43. Flaherty JA, Gaviria M, Pathak D, Mitchell T, Wintrob R. et al. 1988. Developing instruments for cross-cultural psychiatric research. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 176:257–63 [Google Scholar]
  44. Freitag M, Bauer PC. 2013. Testing for measurement equivalence in surveys: dimensions of social trust across cultural contexts. Public Opin. Q. 77:24–44 [Google Scholar]
  45. Ganzeboom HBG. 2009. Multiple indicator measurement of social background Presented at Eur. Surv. Res. Assoc. (ESRA) Conf., 3rd, Warsaw, Pol.
  46. Gesthuizen M, Scheepers P, van der Veld W, Völker B. 2013. Structural aspects of social capital: tests for cross-national equivalence in Europe. Qual. Quant. 47:909–22 [Google Scholar]
  47. Glöckner-Rist A, Hoijtink H. 2003. The best of both worlds: factor analysis of dichotomous data using item response theory and structural equation modeling. Struct. Equ. Model. 10:4544–65 [Google Scholar]
  48. Groves RM, Fowler FJ, Couper MP, Lepkowski JM, Singer E, Tourangeau R. 2009. Survey Methodology Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2nd ed..
  49. Häder S, Gabler S. 2003. Sampling and estimation. See Harkness et al. 2003 117–36
  50. Hagenaars JA, McCutcheon AL. 2002. Applied Latent Class Analysis Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  51. Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ. 1991. Fundamentals of Item Response Theory Newbury Park, CA: Sage
  52. Harding J. 2013. Qualitative Data Analysis from Start to Finish London: Sage
  53. Harkness JA. 1998. ZUMA-Nachrichten Spezial Volume 3: Cross-Cultural Survey Equivalence Mannheim, Ger: ZUMA
  54. Harkness JA. 2006. ZUMA-Nachrichten Spezial Volume 12: Conducting Cross-National and Cross-Cultural Surveys Mannheim, Ger: ZUMA
  55. Harkness JA. 2008. Round 4 ESS translation strategies and procedures Methodol. Doc., Eur. Soc. Survey, March 7. http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/round4/methods/ESS4_translation_guidelines.pdf
  56. Harkness JA, Braun M, Edwards B, Johnson TP, Lyberg L. et al. 2010a. Survey Methods in Multinational, Multiregional, and Multicultural Contexts Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
  57. Harkness JA, Schoua-Glusberg A. 1998. Questionnaires in translation. See Harkness 1998 87–126
  58. Harkness JA, Van de Vijver FJR, Mohler PP. 2003. Cross-Cultural Survey Methods New York: Wiley
  59. Harkness JA, Villar A, Edwards B. 2010b. Translation, adaptation, and design. See Harkness et al. 2010 117–40
  60. Heeringa SG, O'Muircheartaigh C. 2010. Sampling designs for cross-cultural and cross-national survey programs.. See Harkness et al. 2010 251–68
  61. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik JHP, Wolf C. 2003. Advances in Cross-National Comparison: A European Working Book for Demographic and Socio-Economic Variables New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
  62. Horn JL, McArdle JJ. 1992. A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Exp. Aging Res. 18:117–44 [Google Scholar]
  63. Hox JJ. 2010. Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
  64. Hox JJ, de Leeuw ED, Brinkhuis MJ. 2010. Analysis models for comparative surveys. See Harkness et al. 2010 395–418
  65. Hox JJ, de Leeuw ED, Brinkhuis MJ, Ooms J. 2012. Multigroup and multilevel approaches to measurement equivalence. Methods, Theories, and Empirical Applications in the Social Sciences: Festschrift for Peter Schmidt S Salzborn, E Davidov, J Reinecke 91–96 Wiesbaden, Ger: Springer VS [Google Scholar]
  66. Hu L, Bentler PM. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 6:1–55 [Google Scholar]
  67. Hui CH, Triandis HC. 1985. Measurement in cross-cultural psychology: a review and comparison of strategies. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 16:131–52 [Google Scholar]
  68. Inglehart R, Baker WE. 2000. Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. Am. Sociol. Rev. 65:19–51 [Google Scholar]
  69. Ippel L, Gelissen JPTM, Moors GBD. 2013. Investigating longitudinal and cross cultural measurement invariance of Inglehart's short post-materialism scale. Soc. Indic. Res. 115:919–32 [Google Scholar]
  70. Jak S, Oort FJ, Dolan CV. 2011. A stepwise approach for the detection of measurement bias in multilevel data Presented at Struct. Equ. Model. Work. Gr., Marburg, Ger.
  71. Jak S, Oort FJ, Dolan CV. 2013. A test for cluster bias: detecting violations of measurement invariance across clusters in multilevel data. Struct. Equ. Model. 20:2265–82 [Google Scholar]
  72. Janssen R. 2011. Using a differential item functioning approach to investigate measurement invariance. See Davidov et al. 2011b 415–32
  73. Johnson TP. 1998. Approaches to equivalence in cross-cultural and cross-national survey research. See Harkness 1998 1–40
  74. Johnson TP, Van de Vijver FJR. 2003. Social desirability in cross-cultural research. See Harkness et al. 2003 195–206
  75. Jöreskog KG. 1971. Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika 36:409–26 [Google Scholar]
  76. Jöreskog KG. 1990. New developments in LISREL: analysis of ordinal variables using polychoric correlations and weighted least squares. Qual. Quant. 24:4387–404 [Google Scholar]
  77. Jowell R. 1998. How comparative is comparative research?. Am. Behav. Sci. 42:2168–77 [Google Scholar]
  78. Jowell R, Roberts C, Fitzgerald R, Eva G. 2007. Measuring Attitudes Cross-Nationally: Lessons from the European Social Survey. London: Sage
  79. Kalgraff Skjåk K, Harkness JA. 2003. Data collection methods. See Harkness et al. 2003 179–94
  80. Kankaraš M. 2010. Essays on measurement equivalence in cross-cultural survey research: a latent class approach. PhD Thesis, Univ. Tilburg, Neth.
  81. Kankaraš M, Moors G. 2009. Measurement equivalence in solidarity attitudes in Europe: insights from a multiple-group latent-class factor approach. Int. Sociol. 24:4557–79 [Google Scholar]
  82. Kankaraš M, Moors G, Vermunt JK. 2011a. Testing for measurement invariance with latent class analysis. See Davidov et al. 2011b 359–84
  83. Kankaraš M, Vermunt JK, Moors G. 2011b. Measurement equivalence of ordinal items: a comparison of factor analytic, item response theory, and latent class approaches. Sociol. Methods Res. 40:2279–310 [Google Scholar]
  84. Latcheva R. 2011. Cognitive interviewing and factor-analytic techniques: a mixed method approach to validity of survey items measuring national identity. Qual. Quant. 45:61175–99 [Google Scholar]
  85. Lazarsfeld PF, Henry NW. 1968. Latent Structure Analysis Boston: Houghton Mill
  86. Lee J, Little TD, Preacher KJ. 2011. Methodological issues in using structural equation models for testing differential item functioning. See Davidov et al. 2011b 55–84
  87. Little TD, Bovaird JA, Widaman KF. 2006. On the merits of orthogonalizing powered and product terms: implications for modeling interactions among latent variables. Struct. Equ. Model. 13:4497–519 [Google Scholar]
  88. Liu C, Borg I, Spector PE. 2004. Measurement equivalence of the German job satisfaction survey used in a multinational organization: implications of Schwartz's culture model. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:61070–82 [Google Scholar]
  89. Lord FM. 1980. Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
  90. Lubke GH, Muthén BO. 2004. Applying multigroup confirmatory factor models for continuous outcomes to Likert scales complicates meaningful group comparisons. Struct. Equ. Model. 11:4514–34 [Google Scholar]
  91. Lynn P, Japec L, Lyberg L. 2005. What's so special about cross-national surveys?. See Harkness 2006 7–20
  92. Magdison J, Vermunt JK. 2001. Latent class factor and cluster models, biplots and related graphical designs. Sociol. Methodol. 31:223–64 [Google Scholar]
  93. Magun V, Rudnev M, Schmidt P. 2013. Within and between-country value diversity in Europe: latent class analysis Presented at Eur. Surv. Res. Assoc. (ESRA), 5th, Ljubljana, Slov.
  94. Marin G, Gamba RJ, Marin BV. 1992. Extreme response style and acquiescence among Hispanics. The role of acculturation and education. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 23:4498–509 [Google Scholar]
  95. Marsh HW, Hau KT, Wen Z. 2004. In search of golden rules: comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's 1999 findings. Struct. Equ. Model. 11:320–41 [Google Scholar]
  96. Marsh HW, Lüdtke O, Muthén B, Asparouhov T, Morin AJS. et al. 2010. A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychol. Assess. 22:3471–91 [Google Scholar]
  97. Marsh HW, Muthén B, Asparouhov T, Lüdtke O, Robitzsch A. et al. 2009. Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: application to students' evaluations of university teaching. Struct. Equ. Model. 16:3439–76 [Google Scholar]
  98. Masters GN. 1982. A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika 47:149–74 [Google Scholar]
  99. Medina TR, Smith SN, Long JS. 2009. Measurement models matter: implicit assumptions and cross-national research. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 21:3333–61 [Google Scholar]
  100. Mellenbergh GJ. 1989. Item bias and item response theory. Int. J. Educ. Res. 13:127–43 [Google Scholar]
  101. Meredith W. 1964. Rotation to achieve factorial invariance. Psychometrika 29:177–85 [Google Scholar]
  102. Meredith W. 1993. Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika 58:525–43 [Google Scholar]
  103. Meredith W, Teresi JA. 2006. An essay on measurement and factorial invariance. Med. Care 44:69–77 [Google Scholar]
  104. Meuleman B. 2012. When are intercept differences substantively relevant in measurement invariance testing. ? In Methods, Theories, and Empirical Applications in the Social Sciences: Festschrift for Peter Schmidt S Salzborn, E Davidov, J Reinecke 97–104 Heidelberg, Ger: Springer VS [Google Scholar]
  105. Meuleman B, Billiet J. 2012. Measuring attitudes toward immigration in Europe: the cross-cultural validity of the ESS immigration scales. Ask Res. Methods 21:5–29 [Google Scholar]
  106. Millsap RE. 2011. Statistical Approaches to Measurement Invariance New York: Routledge
  107. Millsap RE, Meredith W. 2007. Factorial invariance: historical perspectives and new problems. Factor Analysis at 100: Historical Developments and Future Directions R Cudeck, RC MacCallum 131–152 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  108. Millsap RE, Yun-Tein J. 2004. Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. Multivar. Behav. Res. 39:3479–515 [Google Scholar]
  109. Mohler PP, Smith TW, Harkness JA. 1998. Respondents' ratings of expressions from response scales: a two-country, two-language investigation on equivalence and translation. See Harkness 1998 159–184
  110. Muraki E. 1999. Stepwise analysis of differential item functioning based on multiple-group partial credit model. J. Educ. Meas. 36:217–32 [Google Scholar]
  111. Muthén BO. 1983. Latent variable structural equation modeling with categorical data. J. Econom. 22:1–243–65 [Google Scholar]
  112. Muthén BO. 1985. A method for studying the homogeneity of test items with respect to other relevant variables. J. Educ. Stat. 10:2121–32 [Google Scholar]
  113. Muthén BO. 1989. Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations. Psychometrika 54:557–85 [Google Scholar]
  114. Muthén BO. 1991. Multilevel factor analysis of class and student achievement components. J. Educ. Stat. 28:338–54 [Google Scholar]
  115. Muthén BO. 1994. Multilevel covariance structure analysis. Sociol. Methods Res. 22:3376–98 [Google Scholar]
  116. Muthén BO, Asparouhov T. 2002. Latent variable analysis with categorical outcomes: multiple-group and growth modeling in Mplus. Mplus Web Notes Version 5, Dec. 9. http://www.statmodel.com/examples/webnote.shtml#web4
  117. Muthén BO, Asparouhov T. 2012. Bayesian structural equation modeling: a more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychol. Methods 17:313–35 [Google Scholar]
  118. Muthén BO, Asparouhov T. 2013. BSEM measurement invariance analysis. Mplus Web Notes Number 17, Jan. 11. http://www.statmodel.com/examples/webnotes/webnote17.pdf
  119. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. 1998–2012. Mplus User's Guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén, 7th. http://www.statmodel.com/download/usersguide/Mplus%20user%20guide%20Ver_7_r3_web.pdf
  120. Oberski DL. 2009. JruleMplus Version 0.91. GitHub Software https://github.com/daob/JruleMplus/wiki
  121. Oberski DL. 2014. Evaluating sensitivity of parameters of interest to measurement invariance in latent variable models. Polit. Anal. 22:145–60 [Google Scholar]
  122. Oort FJ. 1992. Using restricted factor analysis to detect item bias. Methodika 6:150–66 [Google Scholar]
  123. Oort FJ. 1998. Simulation study of item bias detection with restricted factor analysis. Struct. Equ. Model. 5:107–24 [Google Scholar]
  124. Oreg S, Bayazit M, Vakola M, Arciniega L, Armenakis A. et al. 2011. Measurement equivalence of the dispositional resistance to change scale. See Davidov et al. 2011b 249–78
  125. Panyusheva TD, Efremova MV. 2012. A validation study of a Russian version of the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) using cognitive interviewing Work. Pap. WP BRP 04/PSY/2012, Nat. Res. Univ. High. Sch. Econ. (HSE), Moscow, Russ. [Google Scholar]
  126. Piurko Y, Schwartz SH, Davidov E. 2011. Basic personal values and the meaning of left-right political orientations in 20 countries. Polit. Psychol. 32:4537–61 [Google Scholar]
  127. Poortinga YH. 1989. Equivalence of cross-cultural data: an overview of basic issues. Int. J. Psychol. 24:737–56 [Google Scholar]
  128. Poznyak D, Meuleman B, Abts K, Bishop GF. 2013. Trust in American government: longitudinal measurement equivalence in the ANES, 1964–2008. Soc. Indic. Res. In press. doi: 10.1007/s11205-013-0441-5
  129. Raijman R, Davidov E, Schmidt P, Hochman O. 2008. What does a nation owe non-citizens? National attachments, perception of threat and attitudes to granting citizenship rights in a comparative perspective. Int. J. Comp. Sociol. 49:2–3195–220 [Google Scholar]
  130. Raju NS, Laffitte LJ, Byrne BM. 2002. Measurement equivalence: a comparison of methods based on confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:3517–29 [Google Scholar]
  131. Rammstedt B, Goldberg LR, Borg I. 2010. The measurement equivalence of Big-Five factor markers for persons with different levels of education. J. Res. Pers. 44:153–61 [Google Scholar]
  132. Reeskens T, Hooghe M. 2007. Cross-cultural measurement equivalence of generalized trust. Evidence from the European Social Survey (2002 and 2004). Soc. Indic. Res. 85:3515–32 [Google Scholar]
  133. Reise SP, Widaman KF, Pugh RH. 1993. Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychol. Bull. 113:3552–66 [Google Scholar]
  134. Riordan CM, Vandenberg RJ. 1994. A central question in cross-cultural research: Do employees of different cultures interpret work-related measures in an equivalent manner?. J. Manag. 20:3643–71 [Google Scholar]
  135. Robie C, Zickar MJ, Schmit MJ. 2001. Measurement equivalence between applicant and incumbent groups: an IRT analysis of personality. Hum. Perform. 14:2187–207 [Google Scholar]
  136. Samejima F. 1969. Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychom. Monogr. Suppl. 34:41–100 [Google Scholar]
  137. Saris WE. 1998. The effects of measurement error in cross cultural research. See Harkness 1998 67–84
  138. Saris WE, Gallhofer IN. 2007. Design, Evaluation, and Analysis of Questionnaires for Survey Research Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
  139. Saris WE, Satorra A, van der Veld WM. 2009. Testing structural equation models or detection of misspecifications?. Struct. Equ. Model. 16:561–82 [Google Scholar]
  140. Sarrasin O, Green EGT, Berchtold A, Davidov E. 2012. Measurement equivalence across subnational groups: an analysis of the conception of nationhood in Switzerland. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 25:4522–34 [Google Scholar]
  141. Schlüter E, Meuleman B. 2009. Measurement inequivalence as a source of useful information: using multi-level SEM to explain why measurements are inequivalent Presented at Eur. Surv. Res. Assoc. (ESRA) Conf., 3rd, Warsaw, Pol.
  142. Schneider S. 2009. Confusing credentials: the cross-nationally comparable measurement of educational attainment DPhil Thesis, Univ. Oxford, U.K.
  143. Schwartz SH. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 25:1–65 [Google Scholar]
  144. Skrondal A, Rabe-Hesketh S. 2004. Generalized Latent Variable Modeling: Multilevel, Longitudinal and Structural Equation Models Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall
  145. Smith PB. 2004. Acquiescent response bias as an aspect of cultural communication style. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 35:150–61 [Google Scholar]
  146. Spini D. 2003. Measurement equivalence of 10 value types from the Schwartz Value Survey across 21 countries. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 34:13–23 [Google Scholar]
  147. Steenkamp JBEM, Baumgartner H. 1998. Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 25:78–90 [Google Scholar]
  148. Stegmueller D. 2011. Apples and oranges? The problem of equivalence in comparative research. Polit. Anal. 19:471–87 [Google Scholar]
  149. Steinmetz H. 2011. Estimation and comparison of latent means across cultures. See Davidov et al. 2011b 85–116
  150. Steinmetz H, Davidov E, Schmidt P. 2011. Three approaches to estimate latent interaction effects: intention and perceived behavioral control in the theory of planned behavior. Methodol. Innovat. Online 6:195–110 [Google Scholar]
  151. Steinmetz H, Schmidt P, Tina-Booh A, Wieczorek S, Schwartz SH. 2009. Testing measurement invariance using multigroup CFA: differences between educational groups in human values measurements. Qual. Quant. 43:599–616 [Google Scholar]
  152. Temme D. 2006. Assessing measurement invariance of ordinal indicators in cross-national research. International Advertising and Communication: Current Insights and Empirical Findings S Diehl, R Terlutter, P Weinberg 455–72 Wiesbaden, Ger: Deutscher Univ. [Google Scholar]
  153. Tourangeau R, Rips LJ, Rasinski K. 2000. The Psychology of Survey Response Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  154. Triandis HC. 1972. The Analysis of Subjective Culture New York: Wiley
  155. van de Schoot R, Kluytmans A, Tummers L, Lugtig P, Hox J, Muthén B. 2013. Facing off with Scylla and Charybdis: a comparison of scalar, partial, and the novel possibility of approximate measurement invariance. Front. Psychol. 4:770 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00770 [Google Scholar]
  156. Van de Velde S, Bracke P, Levecque K, Meuleman B. 2010. Gender differences in depression in 25 European countries after eliminating measurement bias in the CES-D 8. Soc. Sci. Res. 39:3396–404 [Google Scholar]
  157. Van de Vijver FJR. 1998. Towards a theory of bias and equivalence. See Harkness 1998 41–65
  158. Van de Vijver FJR, Leung K. 1997. Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research London: Sage
  159. Van de Vijver FJR, Poortinga YH. 1997. Towards an integrated analysis of bias in cross-cultural assessment. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 13:129–37 [Google Scholar]
  160. van der Veld WM, Saris WE. 2011. Causes of generalized social trust. See Davidov et al. 2011b 207–47
  161. Vandenberg RJ. 2002. . Toward a further understanding of and improvement in measurement invariance methods and procedures. Organ. Res. Methods 5:2139–58 [Google Scholar]
  162. Vandenberg RJ, Lance CE. 2000. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ. Res. Methods 3:4–69 [Google Scholar]
  163. Warner U, Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik JHP. 2005. Discussion of the income measure in the European Social Survey: a proposal of revised survey questions about the “total net household income.”. See Harkness 2006 53–66
  164. Weijters B, Schillewaert N, Geuens M. 2008. Assessing response styles across modes of data collection. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 36:3409–22 [Google Scholar]
  165. Welkenhuysen-Gybels J. 2003. The detection of differential item functioning in Likert score items. PhD Thesis, Kathol. Univ. Leuven, Belg.
  166. Welkenhuysen-Gybels J. 2004. The performance of some observed and unobserved conditional invariance techniques for the detection of differential item functioning. Qual. Quant. 38:6681–702 [Google Scholar]
  167. Welkenhuysen-Gybels J, Billiet J, Cambré B. 2003. Adjustment for acquiescence in the assessment of the construct equivalence of Likert-type score items. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 34:6702–22 [Google Scholar]
  168. Welkenhuysen-Gybels J, Van de Vijver FJR, Cambré B. 2007. A comparison of methods for the evaluation of construct equivalence in a multi-group setting. Measuring Meaningful Data in Social Research G Loosveldt, M Swyngedouw, B Cambré 357–72 Leuven, Belg: Acco [Google Scholar]
  169. Willis GB. 2005. Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. London: Sage [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043137
Loading
Measurement Equivalence in Cross-National Research
Annual Review of Sociology 40, 55 (2014); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043137
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043137
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043137
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error