Testing for Measurement and Structural Equivalence in Large-Scale Cross-Cultural Studies: Addressing the Issue of Nonequivalence

Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

Y

26

Measures (Individuals); Cross Cultural Studies; Measurement; Comparative Analysis; Structural Equation Models; College Students; Foreign Countries; Validity; Factor Structure; Statistical Bias

Algeria; Brazil; Bulgaria; Canada; Chile; Cyprus; France; Georgia Republic; Germany; Ghana; Greece; Hong Kong; India; Indonesia; Iran; Japan; Mexico; Netherlands; Nigeria; Pakistan; Saudi Arabia; South Korea; Spain; Turkey; Ukraine; United Kingdom; United States

10.1080/15305051003637306

1530-5058

A critical assumption in cross-cultural comparative research is that the instrument measures the same construct(s) in exactly the same way across all groups (i.e., the instrument is measurement and structurally equivalent). Structural equation modeling (SEM) procedures are commonly used in testing these assumptions of multigroup equivalence. However, when comparisons comprise large-scale cross-cultural studies, the standard SEM strategy can be extremely problematic both statistically and substantively. Based on responses to a 14-item version of the Family Values Scale (Georgas, 1999) by 5,482 university students from 27 nations around the globe, we describe and illustrate these difficulties. We propose and report on a dual modal two-pronged strategy that focuses on countries as well as scale items in determining the possible sources of bias. Suggestions for minimizing problems in tests for multigroup equivalence in large-scale cross-cultural studies are proffered. (Contains 4 tables, 1 figure, and 9 notes.)

As Provided

66

2010

EJ895200