Book contents
- Methods and Assessment in Culture and Psychology
- Culture and Psychology
- Methods and Assessment in Culture and Psychology
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Additional material
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- 1 Introduction to Methods and Assessment in Culture and Psychology
- Part 1 Acculturation and Identity
- Part 2 Individual Differences across Cultures
- Part 3 Culture and Assessment
- 12 Psychological Assessment In and Over Time: Challenges of Assessing Psychological Constructs and Processes in Cultural Dynamics
- 13 Priming Culture(s): How Theories and Methods Inspire Each Other
- 14 The Evolution of Multigroup Comparison Testing across Culture: Past, Present, and Future Perspectives
- 15 How Far Can Measurement Be Culture-Free?
- Index
- References
15 - How Far Can Measurement Be Culture-Free?
from Part 3 - Culture and Assessment
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 January 2021
Book contents
- Methods and Assessment in Culture and Psychology
- Culture and Psychology
- Methods and Assessment in Culture and Psychology
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Additional material
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- 1 Introduction to Methods and Assessment in Culture and Psychology
- Part 1 Acculturation and Identity
- Part 2 Individual Differences across Cultures
- Part 3 Culture and Assessment
- 12 Psychological Assessment In and Over Time: Challenges of Assessing Psychological Constructs and Processes in Cultural Dynamics
- 13 Priming Culture(s): How Theories and Methods Inspire Each Other
- 14 The Evolution of Multigroup Comparison Testing across Culture: Past, Present, and Future Perspectives
- 15 How Far Can Measurement Be Culture-Free?
- Index
- References
Summary
The ways in which cultural groups vary from one another has long been a matter of everyday observation. The construction of valid and reliable measures of these differences remains problematic. Comparisons of survey responses rest on assumptions about the functional equivalence of translated items and of the assumptions that respondents make about the meaning of such surveys. This chapter explores the different possible levels of measurement equivalence. Psychological variables are most frequently latent rather than directly observable. Philosophers of science have discussed how best to address the challenges one faces when working with latent variables. If we are to claim that latent variables such as individualism or collectivism can account for particular differences between groups, specific counterfactual theorising is required as to the limiting circumstances under which such effects will or will not occur. At a more practical level, we can note that differences are frequently found in the characteristic survey response styles of respondents from different cultural groups, but decisions as to whether or when to discount such variations rest on answers to the more basic philosophical questions raised in the earlier section of this chapter.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Methods and Assessment in Culture and Psychology , pp. 319 - 340Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Bagozzi, R. (2011). Measurement and meaning in information systems and organizational research: Methodological and philosophical foundations. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 35, 261–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, G., & Hacker, P. (1982). The grammar of psychology: Wittgenstein’s “Bemerkungen über die Philosophie der Psychologie.” Language and Communication, 2, 227–244.Google Scholar
Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 815–824.Google Scholar
Boer, D., Hanke, K., & He, J. (2018). On detecting systematic measurement error in cross-cultural research: A review and critical reflection on equivalence and invariance tests. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49, 713–734.Google Scholar
Borsboom, D. (2008). Latent variable theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 6, 25–53.Google Scholar
Bou Malham, P., & Saucier, G. (2014). Measurement invariance of social axioms in 23 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 1046–1060.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2010). Testing for measurement and structural equivalence in large-scale cross-cultural studies: Addressing the issue of nonequivalence. International Journal of Testing, 10, 107–132.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2017). The maximum likelihood alignment approach to testing for approximate measurement invariance: A paradigmatic cross-cultural application. Psicothema, 29, 539–551.Google ScholarPubMed
Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., & Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Bringing values back in: The adequacy of the European Social Survey to measure values in 20 countries. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 420–445.Google Scholar
Fischer, R. (2017). Personality, values, culture: An evolutionary perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, A. J., Medaglia, J. D., & Jeronimus, B. F. (2018). Lack of group-to-individual generalizability is a threat to human subjects research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, E6106-E6115.Google Scholar
Fischer, R. & Milfont, T. L. (2010). Standardization. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 89–97.Google Scholar
Fontaine, J. (2005). Equivalence. In Kempf-Leonard, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of social measurement (vol. 1, pp. 803–813). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Hambleton, R., & Zenisky, A. (2011). Translating and adapting tests for cross-cultural assessments. In Matsumoto, D. & van de Vijver, F. (eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 46–73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
He, J., Bartram, D., Inceoglu, I., & van de Vijver, F. (2014). Response styles and personality traits: A multi-level analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 216–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2013). A general response style factor: Evidence from a multi-ethnic study in the Netherlands. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 794–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2015a). Effects of a general response style on cross-cultural comparisons: Evidence from the Teaching and Learning International Survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 79, 267–290.Google Scholar
He, J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2015b). Self-presentation styles in self-reports: Linking the general factors of response styles, personality traits, and values in a longitudinal study. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 129–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, J., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Domínguez Espinosa, A., Abubakar, A., Dimitrova, R., Adams, B., & Villieux, A. (2015). Socially desirable responding: Enhancement and denial in 20 countries. Cross-Cultural Research, 49, 227–249.Google Scholar
He, J., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Fetvadjiev, V. H., Dominguez-Espinosa, A., Adams, B. G., Alonso-Arbiol, I., & Zhang, R. (2017). On enhancing the cross-cultural comparability of Likert-scale personality and value measures: A comparison of common procedures. European Journal of Personality, 31, 642–657.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Jackson, D., & Messick, S. (1958). Content and style in personality assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 55, 243–252.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. J., Wood, D., Bogg, T., Walton, K. E., Harms, P. D., & Roberts, B. W. (2010). What do conscientious people do? Development and validation of the behavioral indicators of conscientiousness (BIC). Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 501–511.Google Scholar
Jang, S., Kim, E. S., Cao, C., Allen, T., Cooper, C. L., Lapiere, L. & Woo, J. M. (2017). Measurement invariance of the satisfaction with life scale across 26 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48, 560–578.Google Scholar
Johnson, T., Shavitt, S., & Holbrook, A. (2011). Survey response styles across cultures. In Matsumoto, D. & van de Vijver, F. (eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 130–175). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maraun, M. D. (1998). Measurement as a normative practice: Implications of Wittgenstein’s philosophy for measurement in psychology. Theory and Psychology, 8, 435–461.Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. L. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralising Hu & Bentler (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320–341.Google Scholar
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543.Google Scholar
Michell, J (1997). Quantitative science and the definition of measurement in psychology. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 355–383.Google Scholar
Poortinga, Y. (1989). Equivalence of cross-cultural data: An overview of basic issues. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 737–756.Google ScholarPubMed
Poortinga, Y. H., & van de Vijver, F. (1987). Explaining cross-cultural differences: Bias analysis and beyond. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 259–282.Google Scholar
Rozin, P. (2001). Social psychology and science: Some lessons from Solomon Asch. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 2–14.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2007). The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 173–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism and collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kağitçibasi, C., Choi, S. C., & Yoon, G. (eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications (pp. 85–119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. (2004). Mapping and interpreting cultural differences around the world. In Vinken, H., Soeters, J., & Ester, P. (eds.), Comparing cultures: Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective (pp. 43–73). Leiden, NL: Brill.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 519–542.Google Scholar
Selig, J. P., Card, N. A., & Little, T. D. (2008). Latent variable structural equation modeling in cross-cultural research: Multigroup and multilevel approaches. In van de Vijver, F. J. R., van Hemert, D. A., & Poortinga, Y. H. (eds.), Multilevel analysis of individuals and cultures (pp. 93–119). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Smith, P. B. (2004). Acquiescent response bias as an aspect of cultural communication style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 50–61.Google Scholar
Smith, P. B. (2011). Communication styles as dimensions of national culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 216–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, P. B., & Fischer, R. (2008). Acquiescence, extreme response bias and culture: A multilevel analysis. In van de Vijver, F. J. R., van Hemert, D. A., & Poortinga, Y. H. (eds.), Multilevel Analysis of Individuals and Cultures (pp. 285–314). New York: Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Smith, P. B., & Vignoles, V. L. (2017). Variations in response style by culture and by response format. Paper presented at the ninth regional congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Warsaw, Poland.Google Scholar
Smith, P. B., Vignoles, V. L., Becker, M., Owe, E., Easterbrook, M., Brown, R. & Harb, C. (2016). Individual and culture-level components of survey response styles: A multi-level analysis using cultural models of selfhood. International Journal of Psychology, 51, 453–463.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. (1951). Mathematics, measurement and psychophysics. In Stevens, S. S. (ed.), Handbook of experimental psychology (pp. 1–49). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Svetina, D., & Rutkowski, L. (2017). Multidimensional measurement invariance in an international context: Fit measure performance with many groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48, 991–1008.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 20, 410–433.Google Scholar
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions practices and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 4–69.Google Scholar
Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (2000a). Methodological issues in psychological research on culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 33–51.Google Scholar
Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (2000b). Equivalence and bias: A review of concepts, methods and data analytic procedures. In Matsumoto, D. & van de Vijver, F. (eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 17–45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Tanzer, N. (2004). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: An overview. European Review of Applied Psychology, 54, 119–135.Google Scholar
Vignoles, V. L., Owe, E., Becker, M., Smith, P. B., Easterbrook, M., Brown., R., & Bond, M. H. (2016). Beyond the “East-West” dichotomy: Global variation in cultural models of selfhood. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 966–1000.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by