Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:58:48.066Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2021

Fons J. R. van de Vijver  and
Kwok Leung
Edited by
Velichko H. Fetvadjiev ,
Jia He  and
Johnny R. J. Fontaine
Fons J. R. van de Vijver
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Tilburg, The Netherlands
Kwok Leung
Affiliation:
City University of Hong Kong
Velichko H. Fetvadjiev
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Jia He
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Tilburg, The Netherlands
Johnny R. J. Fontaine
Affiliation:
Ghent University
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research , pp. 154 - 183
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aguinis, H., Culpepper, S. A., & Pierce, C. A. (2010). Revival of test bias research in preemployment testing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 648–680.Google Scholar
Aichholzer, J. (2014). Random intercept EFA of personality scales. Journal of Research in Personality, 53, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aldrup, K., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O., Göllner, R., & Trautwein, U. (2018). Social support and classroom management are related to secondary students’ general school adjustment: A multilevel structural equation model using student and teacher ratings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110, 1066–1083.Google Scholar
Allik, J., Church, A. T., Ortiz, F. A., Rossier, J., Hřebíčková, M., de Fruyt, F., … McCrae, R. R. (2017). Mean profiles of the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(3), 402–420.Google Scholar
Allik, J., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Toward a geography of personality traits: Patterns of profiles across 36 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 13–28.Google Scholar
Aluja, A., García, Ó., García, L. F., & Seisdedos, N. (2005). Invariance of the “NEO-PI-R” factor structure across exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1879–1889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amir, Y., & Sharon, I. (1987). Are social psychological laws cross‐culturally valid? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 383–470.Google Scholar
Amirkhan, J. L. (1990). A factor analytically derived measure of coping: The Coping Strategy Indicator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1066–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angoff, W. H., & Ford, S. F. (1973). Item‐race interaction on a test of scholastic aptitude. Journal of Educational Measurement, 10, 95–105.Google Scholar
Arends-Tóth, J. V., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2007a). Acculturation attitudes: A comparison of measurement methods. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1462–1488.Google Scholar
Arends-Tóth, J. V., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2007b). Cultural and gender differences in gender-role beliefs, sharing household-task and child-care responsibilities, and well-being among immigrants and majority members in the Netherlands. Sex Roles, 57, 813–824.Google Scholar
Ariely, G. (2018). Globalization and global identification: A comparative multilevel analysis. National Identities, 20, 125–141.Google Scholar
Arikan, S., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Yagmur, K. (2016). Factors contributing to mathematics achievement differences of Turkish and Australian students in TIMSS 2007 and 2011. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12, 2039–2059.Google Scholar
Arnove, R. F., Torres, C. A., & Franz, S. (Eds.). (2012). Comparative education: The dialectic of the global and the local. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16, 397–438.Google Scholar
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Multiple-group factor analysis alignment. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21, 495–508.Google Scholar
Austin, P. C. (2013). A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score. Statistics in Medicine, 33, 1057–1069.Google Scholar
Azhar, M. Z., & Varma, S. L. (2000). Mental illness and its treatment in Malaysia. In Al-Issa, I. (Ed.), Al-Junun: Mental illness in the Islamic world (pp. 163–185). Madison, CT: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556–559.Google Scholar
Barelds, D. P., & De Raad, B. (2015). The role of word-categories in trait-taxonomy: evidence from the Dutch personality taxonomy. International Journal of Personality Psychology, 1, 15–25.Google Scholar
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 261–272.Google Scholar
Barry, H. (1980). Descriptions and uses of the Human Relations Area Files. In Triandis, H. C. & Berry, J. W. (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (vol. 2, pp. 445–478). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Bartram, D. (1996). The relationship between ipsatized and normative measures of personality. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 25–39.Google Scholar
Bayley, N. (1993). The Bayley Scales of Infant Development (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Beaujean, A. A. (2014). Latent variable modeling using R. A step-by-step guide. Oxford: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Behr, D. (2018). Translating questionnaires for cross-national surveys: A description of a genre and its particularities based on the ISO 17100 categorization of translator competences. Translation & Interpreting, 10, 5–20.Google Scholar
Bender, M., & Chasiotis, A. (2011). Number of siblings in childhood explains cultural variance in autobiographical memory in Cameroon, People’s Republic of China, and Germany. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 998–1017.Google Scholar
Benítez, I., Padilla, J. L., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Cuevas, A. (2018). What cognitive interviews tell us about bias when measuring quality-of-life. Field Methods, 30, 277–294.Google Scholar
Bentler, P. M. (2005). EQS 6 structural equation program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.Google Scholar
Berry, C. M., Clark, M. A., & McClure, T. K. (2011). Racial/ethnic differences in the criterion-related validity of cognitive ability tests: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 881–906.Google Scholar
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5–68.Google Scholar
Berry, J. W., & Dasen, P. R. (1974). Culture and cognition. Readings in cross-cultural psychology. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Breugelmans, S. M., Chasiotis, A., & Sam, D. (2011). Cross-cultural psychology: Theory and applications (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Billiet, J. B., & McClendon, M. J. (2000). Modeling acquiescence in measurement models for two balanced sets of items. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 608–628.Google Scholar
Boehnke, K., Lietz, P., Schreier, M., & Wilhelm, A. (2011). Sampling: The selection of cases for culturally comparative psychological research. In Matsumoto, D. & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 101–129). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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
Bollen, K. J., & Long, J. S. (Eds.). (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bolt, D. M., & Gierl, M. J. (2006). Testing features of graphical DIF: Application of a regression correction to three nonparametric statistical tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43, 313–333.Google Scholar
Bolt, D. M., Lu, Y., & Kim, J. S. (2014). Measurement and control of response styles using anchoring vignettes: A model-based approach. Psychological Methods, 19, 528–541.Google Scholar
Bond, L. (2012). Comments on the O’Neill and McPeek’s paper. In Holland, P. W. & Wainer, H. (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 277–279). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Au, A., Tong, K.-K., de Carrasquel, S. R., Murakami, F., … Lewis, J. R. (2004). Culture-level dimensions of social axioms and their correlates across 41 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 548–570.Google Scholar
Bond, M. H., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2011). Making scientific sense of cultural differences in psychological outcomes: Unpackaging the magnum mysterium. In Matsumoto, D. & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 75–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Borg, I., & Groenen, P. J. F. (2005). Modern multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Borg, I., Groenen, P. J. F., & Mair, P. (2018). Applied multidimensional scaling and unfolding. Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Bowden, S. C. Saklofske, D., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., Sudarshan, N. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (2016). Cross-cultural measurement invariance of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire across 33 countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 103, 53–60.Google Scholar
Brenner, S. O., & Bartell, R. (1984). The teacher stress process: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 5, 183–195.Google Scholar
Breslau, J., Javaras, K. N., Blacker, D., Murphy, J. M., & Normand, S. L. T. (2008). Differential item functioning between ethnic groups in the epidemiological assessment of depression. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 196, 297–306.Google Scholar
Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In Lonner, W. J. & Berry, J. W. (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Breugelmans, S. M. & Poortinga, Y. H. (2006). Emotion without a word: Shame and guilt among Rarámuri Indians and rural Javanese. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1111–1122.Google Scholar
Briggs, M. I., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L. & Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Vol. 3). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Brouwers, S. A., Van Hemert, D., Breugelmans, S., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2004). A historical analysis of empirical studies published in the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1970-2004. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 251–262.Google Scholar
Brouwers, S. A., Mishra, R. C., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2006). Schooling and everyday cognitive development among Kharwar children in India: A natural experiment. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 30, 559–567.Google Scholar
Brouwers, S. A., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Mishra, R. C. (2017). Cognitive development through schooling and everyday life: A natural experiment among Kharwar children in India. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 41, 309–319.Google Scholar
Brouwers, S. A., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Van Hemert, D. A. (2009). Variation in Raven’s Progressive Matrices scores across time and place. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 330–338.Google Scholar
Brown, A., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2011). Item response modeling of forced-choice questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 460–502.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Browne, M. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 111–150.Google Scholar
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Burton, E., & Burton, N. (2012). The effect of item screening on test scores and test characteristics. In Holland, P. W. & Wainer, H. (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 321–335). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bye, H. H., Sandal, G. M., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., Sam, D., Cakar, N.D., & Franke, G. H. (2010). Personal values and intended self-presentation during job interviews: A cross-cultural comparison. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60, 160–182.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M. (2004). Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: A road less traveled. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 272–300.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M. (2006). Structural equation modelling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema, 20, 872–882.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M. (2009). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd Edition). New York: Taylor & Francis/Routledge.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M. (2016). Adaptation of assessment scales in cross-national research: Issues, guidelines, and caveats. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation, 5, 51–65.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M., Oakland, T., Leong, F. T., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., Hambleton, R. K., Cheung, F. M., & Bartram, D. (2009). A critical analysis of cross-cultural research and testing practices: Implications for improved education and training in psychology. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 3, 94–105.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M., & Watkins, D. (2003). The issue of measurement invariance revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 155–175.Google Scholar
Cain, M. K., & Zhang, Z. (2019). Fit for a Bayesian: An evaluation of PPP and DIC for structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26, 39–50.Google Scholar
Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. N. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1986). Science’s social system of validity-enhancing collective belief change and the problems of the social sciences. In Fiske, D. W. & Shweder, R. A. (Eds.), Metatheory in social science (pp. 108–135). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi‑experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Caramelli, M., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2013). Towards a comprehensive procedure for developing measurement scales for cross-cultural management research. Management International, 17, 150–163.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D. & Chang, J. (1970). Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an n-way generalization of “Eckart-Young” decomposition. Psychometrika ,35, 283–319.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D., & Wish, M. (1974). Models and methods for three-way multidimensional scaling. In Shepard, R. N., Romney, A. K., & Nerlove, S. B. (Eds.), Contemporary developments in mathematical psychology (pp. 57–105). San Francisco, CA: Freeman.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1940). A culture‐free intelligence test, I. Journal of Educational Psychology, 31, 176–199.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B., & Cattell, A. K. S. (1963). Culture Fair Intelligence Test. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.Google Scholar
Chahin, N., Cosi, S., Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Vigil-Colet, A. (2010). Stability of the factor structure of Barrat’s Impulsivity Scales for children across cultures: A comparison of Spain and Colombia. Psicothema, 22, 983–989.Google Scholar
Chan, W., & Bentler, P. M. (1993). The covariance structure analysis of ipsative data. Sociological Methods & Research, 22, 214–247.Google Scholar
Chen, S. X., Chan, W., Bond, M. H., & Stewart, S. M. (2006). The effects of self-efficacy and relationship harmony on depression across cultures: Applying level-oriented and structure-oriented analyses. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 643–658.Google Scholar
Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Zhang, J. X., Sun, H. F., Gan, Y. G., Song, W. Z., & Xie, D. (2001). Indigenous Chinese personality constructs: Is the Five-Factor Model complete? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 407–433.Google Scholar
Cheung, F. M., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leong, F. T. L. (2011). Toward a new approach to the assessment of personality in culture. American Psychologist, 66, 593–603.Google Scholar
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.Google Scholar
Cheung, M. W.-L., & Chan, W. (2002). Reducing uniform response bias with ipsative measurement in multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 55–77.Google Scholar
Cheung, M. W. L., Leung, K., & Au, K. (2006). Evaluating multilevel models in cross-cultural research: An illustration with social axioms. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 522–541.Google Scholar
Connection, Chinese Culture (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture‐free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross‑Cultural Psychology, 18, 143–164.Google Scholar
Choi, S. W., Gibbons, L. E., & Crane, P. K. (2011). lordif: An R package for detecting differential item functioning using iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression/item response theory and Monte Carlo simulations. Journal of Statistical Software, 39, 1–30.Google Scholar
Chiu, M. M., Chow, B. W.-Y., McBride, C., & Mol, S. T. (2015). Students’ sense of belonging at school in 41 countries: Cross-cultural variability. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47, 175–196.Google Scholar
Church, A. T., Alvarez, J. M., Mai, N. T. Q., French, B. F., Katigbak, M. S., & Ortiz, F. A. (2011). Are cross-cultural comparisons of personality profiles meaningful? Differential item and facet functioning in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1068–1089.Google Scholar
Clauser, B. E., Mazor, K. M., & Hambleton, R. K. (1994). The effects of score group width on the Mantel‑Haenszel procedure. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31, 67–78.Google Scholar
Cleary, T. A., & Hilton, T. L. (1968). An investigation of item bias. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 28, 61–75.Google Scholar
Coffé, H., & Bolzendahl, C. (2010). Same game, different rules? Gender differences in political participation. Sex Roles, 62, 318–333.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003.Google Scholar
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Commandeur, J. J. F. (1991). Matching configurations. Leiden: University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Commandeur, J. J. F. (1996). Generalized Procrustes analysis for (in)complete configurations (Version 2.5) [Computer software]. Leiden: University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation. Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods. New York, NY: Irvington.Google Scholar
Cross, S. E. (1995). Self-construals, coping, and stress in cross-cultural adaptation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 673–697.Google Scholar
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.Google Scholar
Davidov, E., Cieciuch, J., Meuleman, B., Schmidt, P., Algesheimer, R., & Hausherr, M. (2015). The comparability of measurements of attitudes toward immigration in the European Social Survey: Exact versus approximate measurement equivalence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 79, 244–266.Google Scholar
Davidov, E., Dülmer, H., Cieciuch, J., Kuntz, A., Seddig, D., & Schmidt, P. (2018). Explaining measurement nonequivalence using multilevel structural equation modeling: The case of attitudes toward citizenship rights. Sociological Methods & Research, 47, 729–760.Google Scholar
Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., Billiet, J, & Meuleman, B. (Eds.) (2018). Cross-cultural analysis: Methods and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Davis, R. E., Couper, M. P., Janz, N. K., Caldwell, C. H., & Resnicow, K. (2010). Interviewer effects in public health surveys. Health Education Research, 25, 14–26.Google Scholar
De Beuckelaer, A., & Lievens, F. (2009). Measurement equivalence of paper-and-pencil and internet organisational surveys: A large scale examination in 16 countries. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58, 336–361.Google Scholar
Deardorff, D. (Ed.) (2009). The Sage handbook of intercultural competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: SageGoogle Scholar
Demes, K. A., & Geeraert, N. (2015). The highs and lows of a cultural transition: A longitudinal analysis of sojourner stress and adaptation across 50 countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 316–337.Google Scholar
Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6, 80–88.Google Scholar
Deregowski, J. B., & Serpell, R. (1971). Performance on a sorting task: A cross‑cultural experiment. International Journal of Psychology, 6, 273–281.Google Scholar
Devine, P. J., & Raju, N. S. (1982). Extent of overlap among four item bias methods. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42, 1049–1066.Google Scholar
DiBlas, L., & Forzi, M. (1999). Refining a descriptive structure of personality attributes in the Italian language: The abridged Big Three circumplex structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 451–481.Google Scholar
Dinesen, P. T. (2012). Does generalized (dis) trust travel? Examining the impact of cultural heritage and destination‐country environment on trust of immigrants. Political Psychology, 33, 495–511.Google Scholar
Doi, T. (1973). The anatomy of dependence. Tokyo: Kodansha International.Google Scholar
Dolnicar, S., & Grun, B. (2007). Cross-cultural differences in survey response patterns. International Marketing Review, 24, 127–143.Google Scholar
Dorans, N. J., & Kulick, E. (1986). Demonstrating the utility of the standardization approach to assessing unexpected differential item performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23, 355–368.Google Scholar
Dosse, M. B., Kiers, H. A., & Ten Berge, J. M. (2011). Anisotropic generalized Procrustes analysis. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 55, 1961–1968.Google Scholar
Douglas, S. P., & Craig, C. S. (2007). Collaborative and iterative translation: An alternative approach to back translation. Journal of International Marketing, 15, 30–43.Google Scholar
Dryden, I. L. (2019). shapes: Statistical Shape Analysis. R package 1.2.5.Google Scholar
Dunning, T. (2012). Natural experiments in the social sciences: A design-based approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Earley, C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 565–581.Google Scholar
Eid, M., Langeheine, R., & Diener, E. (2003). Comparing typological structures across cultures by multigroup latent class analysis a primer. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 195–210.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Hennelly, R. A. (1980). A bilingual word‑length effect: Implications for intelligence testing and the relative ease of mental calculation in Welsh and English. British Journal of Psychology, 71, 43–51.Google Scholar
Embretson, S. E. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 179–197.Google Scholar
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Engelhard, G., Hansche, L., & Rutledge, K. E. (1990). Accuracy of bias review judges in identifying differential item functioning on teacher certification tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 3, 347–360.Google Scholar
Everitt, B. (1992). Cluster analysis (3rd ed.). London: Edward Arnold / Halsted Press.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1994). Manual for the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ-R Adult). London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
Fabrigar, L. R., & Wegener, D. T. (2011). Exploratory factor analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, S. S., Rosenthal, D. A., Mont‑Reynaud, R., Leung, K., & Lau, S. (1991). ‘Ain’t misbehavin’: Adolescent values and family environments as correlates of misconduct in Australia, Hong Kong, and the United States. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1, 109–134.Google Scholar
Fetvadjiev, V. H., Meiring, D., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., Nel, J. A., & Hill, C. (2015). The South African Personality Inventory (SAPI): A culture-informed instrument for the country’s main ethnocultural groups. Psychological Assessment, 27, 827–837.Google Scholar
Fidalgo, A. M. (2011). GMHDIF: A computer program for detecting DIF in dichotomous and polytomous items using generalized Mantel-Haenszel statistics. Applied Psychological Measurement, 35, 247–249.Google Scholar
Fidalgo, A. M., & Madeira, J. M. (2008). Generalized Mantel-Haenszel methods for differential item functioning detection. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 940–958.Google Scholar
Field, A. (2013) Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed.). London. SageGoogle Scholar
Fischer, D. G., & Fick, C. (1993). Measuring social desirability: Short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 417–424.Google Scholar
Fischer, G. H. (1993). Notes on the Mantel‑Haenszel procedure and another chi‑squared test for the assessment of DIF. Methodika, 7, 88–100.Google Scholar
Fischer, R. (2004). Standardization to account for cross-cultural response bias: A classification of score adjustment procedures and review of research in JCCP. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 263–282.Google Scholar
Fischer, R. (2009). Where is culture in cross cultural research?: An outline of a multilevel research process for measuring culture as a shared meaning system. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 9, 25–49.Google Scholar
Fischer, R., & Fontaine, J. R. J. (2011). Methods for investigating structural equivalence. In Matsumoto, D. & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (p. 179–215). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, R., & Karl, J. A primer to (cross-cultural) multi-group invariance testing possibilities in R. Frontiers in Psychology, 10:1507.Google Scholar
Fischer, R., Vauclair, C.-M., Fontaine, J. R. J., & Schwartz, S. H. (2010). Are individual-level and country-level value structures different? Testing Hofstede’s legacy with the Schwartz Value Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 41, 135–151.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. J., & Katz, J. E. (2000). Social‐desirability bias and the validity of self‐reported values. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 105–120.Google Scholar
Fontaine, J. R. J. (2003). Multidimensional scaling. In Harkness, J. A., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Mohler, P. Ph. (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 235–246). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Fontaine, J. R. J. (2008). Traditional and multilevel approaches in cross-cultural research: An integration of methodological frameworks. In van de Vijver, F. J. R., van Hemert, D. A., & Poortinga, Y. H. (Eds.), Multilevel analysis of individuals and cultures (pp. 65–92). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fontaine, J. R. J. & Fischer, R. (2011). Data analytic approaches for investigating isomorphism between the individual-level and the cultural-level internal structure. In Matsumoto, D. & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (p. 179–215). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fontaine, J., Poortinga, Y. H., Delbeke, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Structural equivalence of the values domain across cultures – Distinguishing sampling fluctuations from meaningful variation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 345–365.Google Scholar
Fontaine, J. R. J., Poortinga, Y. H., Setiadi, B., & Markam, S. (2002). Cognitive structure of emotion terms in Indonesia and The Netherlands. Cognition and Emotion, 16, 61–86.Google Scholar
Fox, J., Nie, Z., & Byrnes, J. (2016). sem. Structural equation models. R package 3.1–7.Google Scholar
Frijda, N., & Jahoda, G. (1966). On the scope and methods of cross‑cultural research. International Journal of Psychology, 1, 109–127.Google Scholar
Galchenko, I., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2007). The role of perceived cultural distance in the acculturation of exchange students in Russia. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 181–197.Google Scholar
Goh, D. S., & Yu, J. (2001). Translation and validation of the Chinese form of the Strong Interest Inventory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 252–268.Google Scholar
Gómez-Benito, J., Hidalgo, M. D., & Padilla, J. L. (2009). Efficacy of effect size measures in logistic regression: An application for detecting DIF. Methodology, 5, 18–25.Google Scholar
González, A., Padilla, J. L., Hidalgo, M. D., Gómez-Benito, J., & Benítez, I. (2010). EASY-DIF: Software for analyzing differential item functioning using the Mantel-Haenszel and standardization procedures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 35, 483–484.Google Scholar
Gonzalez‐Ocantos, E., De Jonge, C. K., Meléndez, C., Osorio, J., & Nickerson, D. W. (2012). Vote buying and social desirability bias: Experimental evidence from Nicaragua. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 202–217.Google Scholar
Gordoni, G., Schmidt, P., & Gordoni, Y. (2012). Measurement invariance across face-to-face and telephone modes: The case of minority-status collectivistic-oriented groups. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24, 185–207.Google Scholar
Grimm, S. D., & Church, A. T. (1999). A cross-cultural study of response biases in personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 415–441.Google Scholar
Grob, A., Little, T. D., Wanner, B., Wearing, A. J., & Euronet, . (1996). Adolescents’ well-being and perceived control across fourteen sociocultural contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 785–795.Google Scholar
Groves, R. M. (2006). Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 646–675.Google Scholar
Guo, S., & Fraser, M. W. (2015). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications (Vol. 11, 2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hagen, R. L. (1997). In praise of the null hypothesis statistical test. American Psychologist, 52, 15–24.Google Scholar
Haller, M., Jowell, R., & Smith, T. W. (Eds.). (2009). The International Social Survey Programme 1984-2009: Charting the globe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hambleton, R. K. (1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: A progress report. European Journal of Psychological Assessment (Bulletin of the International Test Commission), 10, 229–244.Google Scholar
Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P. F. & Spielberger, C. D. (Eds.) (2005). Adapting educational tests and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mawhaw, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hambleton, R. K., Yu, J., & Slater, S. C. (1999). Field test of the ITC guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 15, 270–276.Google Scholar
Hannover, B. (1995). Self-serving bias and self-satisfaction in East versus West German students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 176–188.Google Scholar
Hapunda, G. (2015). Psychosocial functioning in individuals living with Diabetes Mellitus in Zambia. PhD thesis, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Harkness, J. A. (2003). Questionnaire translation. In Harkness, J. A., van de Vijver, F. J. R. & Mohler, P. Ph. (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 19–34). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Harkness, J. A., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Johnson, T. P. (2003). Questionnaire design in comparative research. In Harkness, J. A., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Mohler, P. Ph. (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 19–34). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Harkness, J. A., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Mohler, P. Ph. (Eds.) (2003). Cross-cultural survey methods. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Harrison, D. A., Kravitz, D. A., Mayer, D. M., Leslie, L. M., & Lev-Arey, D. (2006). Understanding attitudes toward affirmative action programs in employment: Summary and meta-analysis of 35 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1013–1036.Google Scholar
Harzing, A. (2006). Response styles in cross-national survey research: A 26-country study. Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 6, 243–266.Google Scholar
Hauger, J. B., & Sireci, S. G. (2008). Detecting differential item functioning across examinees tested in their dominant language and examinees tested in a second language. International Journal of Testing, 8, 237–250.Google Scholar
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
He, J., Buchholz, J., & Klieme, E. (2017). Effects of anchoring vignettes on comparability and predictive validity of student self-reports in 64 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 8, 319–334.Google 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.Google Scholar
He, J., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2015). 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. (2016). The motivation-achievement paradox in international educational achievement tests: Towards a better understanding. In King, R. B. & Bernardo, A. I. B. (Eds.), The psychology of Asian learners (pp. 253–268). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
He, J., Van de Vijver, F. J., Espinosa, A. D., & Mui, P. H. (2014). Toward a unification of acquiescent, extreme, and midpoint response styles: A multilevel study. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 14, 306–322.Google 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. d. C., 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
Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2019). World Happiness Report 2019. New York, NY: Sustainable Development Solutions Network.Google Scholar
Hicks, L. E. (1970). Some properties of ipsative, normative, and forced-choice normative measures. Psychological Bulletin, 74, 167–184.Google Scholar
Hidalgo, M. D., Gómez-Benito, J., & Zumbo, B. D. (2014). Binary logistic regression analysis for detecting differential item functioning: Effectiveness of R2 and delta log odds ratio effect size measures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74, 927–949.Google Scholar
Hidalgo, M. D., & López-Pina, J. A. (2004). Differential item functioning detection and effect size: A comparison between logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 903–915.Google Scholar
Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin,Google Scholar
Hinton, D. E., & Lewis‐Fernández, R. (2011). The cross‐cultural validity of posttraumatic stress disorder: implications for DSM‐5. Depression and Anxiety, 28, 783–801.Google Scholar
Hirschfeld, G., & von Brachel, R. (2014). Multiple-group confirmation factor analysis in R-A tutorial in measurement invariance with continuous and ordinal indicators. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 19(7).Google Scholar
Ho, D. Y. F. (1996). Filial piety and its psychological consequences. In Bond, M. H. (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (p. 155–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ho, D., Kosuke, I., King, G., & Stuart, E. (2007). MatchIt: Nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. Political Analysis, 15, 199–236.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In Wainer, H. & Braun, H. I. (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129–145). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (Eds.) (2012). Differential item functioning. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Homer, P. (1993). Transmission of human values: A cross-cultural investigation of generalization and reciprocal influence effects. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 119, 343–367.Google Scholar
Hoover, H. D., & Kolen, M. J. (1984). The reliability of six item bias indices. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 173–181.Google Scholar
Hopwood, C. J., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). How should the internal structure of personality inventories be evaluated? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 332–346.Google Scholar
Hox, J. P. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. London: Lawrence.Google Scholar
Hox, J., Moerbeek, M., & Van de Schoot, R. (2018). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (3rd Ed.). Quantitative Methodology Series. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., Gupta, , V., & GLOBE Associates. (2004). Leadership, culture and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hui, C. H. (1984). Individualism-collectivism: Theory, measurement, and its relation to reward allocation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1989). Effects of culture and response format on extreme response style. Journal of Cross‑Cultural Psychology, 20, 296–309.Google Scholar
Hui, C. H., Triandis, H. C., & Yee, C. (1991). Cultural differences in reward allocation: Is collectivism the explanation? British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 145–157.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, R. (1979). Differential validity of employment tests by race: A comprehensive review and analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 721–735.Google Scholar
Huntington, S. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2010). Changing mass priorities: The link between modernization and democracy. Perspectives on Politics, 8, 551–567.Google Scholar
Ironson, G. H., & Subkoviak, M. J. (1979). A comparison of several methods of assessing item bias. Journal of Educational Measurement, 16, 209–225.Google Scholar
International Test Commission. (2017). The ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests (second edition). www.InTestCom.orgGoogle Scholar
Jäckle, A., Roberts, C., & Lynn, P. (2010). Assessing the effect of data collection mode on measurement. International Statistical Review, 78, 3–20.Google Scholar
Jahoda, G. (1995). In pursuit of the emic-etic distinction: Can we ever capture it? In Goldberger, N. R. & Veroff, J. B. (Eds.), The culture and psychology reader (pp. 128–138). New York, NY: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor. The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Jodoin, M. G., & Gierl, M. J. (2001). Evaluating power and Type I error rates using an effect size with the logistic regression procedure for DIF. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 329–349.Google Scholar
Johnson, T. P. (1998). Approaches to equivalence in cross-cultural and cross-national survey research. ZUMA-Nachrichten Spezial, 3, 1–40.Google Scholar
Johnson, T. P., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2003). Social desirability in cross-cultural research. In Harkness, J. A., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Mohler, P. Ph. (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 195–204). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Johnson, W., Spinath, F., Krueger, R. F., Angleitner, A., & Riemann, R. (2008). Personality in Germany and Minnesota: An IRT-based comparison of MPQ self-reports. Journal of Personality, 76, 665–706.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G., & Goldberger, A. S. (1975). Estimation of a model with multiple indicators and multiple causes of a single latent variable. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70, 631–639.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
Jowell, R., Roberts, C., Fitzgerald, R., & Eva, G. (Eds.). (2007). Measuring attitudes cross-nationally: Lessons from the European Social Survey. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Kalgraff Skjåk, K., & Harkness, J. (2003). Data collection methods. In Harkness, J. A., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Mohler, P. Ph. (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 179–193). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kang, S.-M., Shaver, P. R., Sue, S., Min, K.-H., & Jing, H. (2003). Culture-specific patterns in the prediction of life satisfaction: Roles of emotion, relationship quality, and self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1596–1608.Google Scholar
Kankaraš, M., Moors, G., & Vermunt, J. K. (2018). Testing for measurement invariance with latent class analysis. In Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., Billiet, J., & Meuleman, B. (Eds.), Cross-cultural analysis. Methods and applications (2nd ed.pp. 393–419). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Katigbak, M. S., Church, A. T., Guanzon-Lapeña, M. A., Carlota, A. J., & del Pilar, G. H. (2002). Are indigenous personality dimensions culture specific? Philippine inventories and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 89–101.Google Scholar
Kapteyn, A., Smith, J. P., Van Soest, A., & Vonkova, H. (2011). Anchoring vignettes and response consistency. Working Paper No. WR-840. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. J. (2009). Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis (Vol. 344). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kelderman, H., & Macready, G. B. (1990). The use of loglinear models for assessing differential item functioning across manifest and latent examinee groups. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 307–327.Google Scholar
Kelley, K., & Preacher, K. J. (2012). On effect size. Psychological Methods, 17, 137–152.Google Scholar
Kendall, I. M., Verster, M. A., & Von Mollendorf, J. W. (1988). Test performance of Blacks in Southern Africa. In Irvine, S. H. & Berry, J. W. (Eds.), Human abilities in cultural context (pp. 299–339). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keppel, G. (1982). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prenctice Hall.Google Scholar
King, G., & Wand, J. (2007). Comparing incomparable survey responses: Evaluating and selecting anchoring vignettes. Political Analysis, 15, 46–66.Google Scholar
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
Kok, F. G. (1988). Vraagpartijdigheid. Methodologische verkenningen. [Item bias. Methodological observations.] Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Koller, M., Aaronson, N. K., Blazeby, J., Bottomley, A., Dewolf, L., Fayers, P., … & EORTC Quality of Life Group. (2007). Translation procedures for standardised quality of life questionnaires: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) approach. European Journal of Cancer, 43, 1810–1820.Google Scholar
Kuo, H. K., & Marsella, A. J. (1977). The meaning and measurement of Machiavellianism in Chinese and American college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 101, 165–173.Google Scholar
Kyllonen, P. C., & Bertling, J. P. (2014). Innovative questionnaire assessment methods to increase cross-country comparability. In Rutkowski, L., von Davier, M., & Rutkowski, D. (Eds.), Handbook of international large-scale assessment: Background, technical issues, and methods of data analysis (pp. 277–286). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Lafontaine, D., Dupont, V., Jaegers, D., & Schillings, P. (2019). Self-concept in reading: Factor structure, cross-cultural invariance and relationships with reading achievement in an international context (PIRLS 2011). Studies in Educational Evaluation, 60, 78–89.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Henry, N. W. (1968). Latent structure analysis. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Lee, S., Bulut, O., & Suh, Y. (2017). Multidimensional extension of multiple indicators multiple causes models to detect DIF. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 77, 545–569.Google Scholar
Leung, K. (1987). Some determinants of reactions to procedural models for conflict resolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 898–908.Google Scholar
Leung, K. (1989). Cross‑cultural differences: Individual‑level vs. culture‑level analysis. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 703–719.Google Scholar
Leung, K. (2009). Never the twain shall meet? Integrating Chinese and Western management research. Management and Organization Review, 5, 121–129.Google Scholar
Leung, K., Au, Y., Fernandez‑Dols, J. M., & Iwawaki, S. (1992). Preference for methods of conflict processing in two collectivist cultures. International Journal of Psychology, 27, 195–209.Google Scholar
Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (1984). The impact of cultural collectivism on reward allocation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 793–804.Google Scholar
Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (1989). On the empirical identification of dimensions for cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 133–151.Google Scholar
Leung, K., Bond, M. H., & Schwartz, S. H. (1995). How to explain cross-cultural differences: Values, valences, and expectancies? Asian Journal of Psychology, 1, 70–75.Google Scholar
Leung, K., & Lind, E. A. (1986). Procedural justice and culture: Effects of culture, gender, and investigator status on procedural preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1134–1140.Google Scholar
Leung, K., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2008). Strategies for strengthening causal inferences in cross cultural research: The consilience approach. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8, 145–169.Google Scholar
Leung, K., & Zhang, J. (1996). Systemic considerations: Factors facilitating and impeding the development of psychology in developing countries. International Journal of Psychology, 30, 693–706.Google Scholar
Lim, W., Plucker, J. A., & Im, K. (2002). We are more alike than we think we are: Implicit theories of intelligence with a Korean sample. Intelligence, 30, 185–208.Google Scholar
Lincoln, J. R., & Zeitz, G. (1980). Organizational properties from aggregate data: Separating individual and structural effects. American Sociological Review, 45, 391–408.Google Scholar
Linn, R. L. (2012). The use of differential item functioning statistics: A discussion of current practice and future implications. In Holland, P. W. & Wainer, H. (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 349–364). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Little, T. D., & Lopez, D. F. (1997). Regularities in the development of children’s causality beliefs about school performance across six sociocultural contexts. Developmental Psychology, 33, 65–75.Google Scholar
Little, T. D., Oettingen, G., Stetsenko, A., & Baltes, P. B. (1995). Children’s action-control beliefs and school performance: How do American children compare with German and Russian children? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 686–700.Google Scholar
Liu, J. H., Paez, D., Hanke, K., Rosa, A., Hilton, D. J., Sibley, C., … & Suwa, K. (2012). Cross cultural dimensions of meaning in the evaluation of events in world history? Perceptions of historical calamities and progress in cross-cultural data from 30 societies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 251–272.Google Scholar
Lonner, W. J., & Adamopoulos, J. (1996). Culture as antecedent to behavior. In Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., & Pandey, J. (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (2nd ed., vol. 1). Chicago, IL: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Lonner, W. J., & Berry, J. W. (Eds.) (1986), Field methods in cross-cultural research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Lord, F. M. (1967). A paradox in the interpretation of group comparisons. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 304–305.Google Scholar
Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ten Berge, J. M. F. (2006). Tucker’s congruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodology, 2, 57–64.Google Scholar
Lynn, R. (1994). Sex differences in intelligence and brain size: A paradox resolved. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 257–271.Google Scholar
Lynn, R., & Vanhanen, T. (2002). IQ and the wealth of nations. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
MacIntosh, R., & Hashim, S. (2003). Variance estimation for converting MIMIC model parameters to IRT parameters in DIF analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 372–379.Google Scholar
Malda, M., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., Srinivasan, K., Transler, C., & Sukumar, P. (2010). Traveling with cognitive tests: Testing the validity of a KABC-II adaptation in India. Assessment, 17, 107–115.Google Scholar
Markham, S. E. (1988). Pay-for-performance dilemma revisited: Empirical example of the importance of group effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 172–180.Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W., & Byrne, B. M. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis of multigroup-multimethod self-concept data: Between-group and within-group invariance constraints. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 313–349.Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471–491.Google Scholar
Martin, M. O. & Mullis, I. V. S. (Eds.). (2013). TIMSS and PIRLS 2011: Relationships among reading, mathematics, and science achievement at the fourth grade—Implications for early learning. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.Google Scholar
Matafwali, B., & Serpell, R. (2014). Design and validation of assessment tests for young children in Zambia. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 146, 77–96.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, D., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (Eds.) (2011). Cross-cultural research methods in psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mattern, K. D., Patterson, B. F., Shaw, E. J., Kobrin, J. L., & Barbuti, S. M. (2008). Differential validity and prediction of the SAT. New York, NY: The College Board.Google Scholar
Mazor, K. M., Clauser, B. E., & Hambleton, R. K. (1994). Identification of nonuniform differential item functioning using a variation of the Mantel‑Haenszel procedure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 284–291.Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1983). Social desirability scales: more substance than style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 882–888.Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Del Pilar, G. H., Rolland, J. P., & Parker, W. D. (1998). Cross-cultural assessment of the five-factor model the revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 171–188.Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Costa, P. T. Jr, Bond, M. H., & Paunonen, S. V. (1996). Evaluating replicability of factors in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus Procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 552–566.Google Scholar
Mehta, P. D., & Neale, M. C. (2005). People are variables too:  Multilevel structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 10, 259–284.Google Scholar
Meiring, D., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., Rothmann, S., & Barrick, M. R. (2005). Construct, item, and method bias of cognitive and personality tests in South Africa. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 31, 1–8.Google Scholar
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749.Google Scholar
Mickelson, R. A. (1990). The attitude-achievement paradox among Black adolescents. Sociology of Education, 63, 44–61.Google Scholar
Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2015). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 111–130.Google Scholar
Mimura, C., & Griffiths, P. (2008). A Japanese version of the Perceived Stress Scale: Cross-cultural translation and equivalence assessment. BMC Psychiatry, 8:85.Google Scholar
Mitchelson, J. K., Wicher, E. W., LeBreton, J. M., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Gender and ethnicity differences on the Abridged Big Five Circumplex (AB5C) of personality traits: A differential item functioning analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 613–635.Google Scholar
Moghaddam, M. F. (1990). Modulative and generative orientations in psychology: Implications for psychology in the three worlds. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 21–41.Google Scholar
Molenaar, I. W., & Fischer, G. H. (Eds.) (1995). Rasch models: Foundations, recent developments, and applications. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Moore, D., & McCabe, G. (2012). Introduction to the practice of statistics (7th ed.). New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Morgenthaler, S. (2009). Exploratory data analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 1, 33–44.Google Scholar
Morris, M. W., Leung, K., & Iyengar, S. (2004). Person perception in the heat of conflict: Negative trait attributions affect procedural preferences and account for situational and cultural differences. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 127–147.Google Scholar
Mujahid, M. S., Roux, A. V. D., Shen, M., Gowda, D., Sánchez, B., Shea, S., … & Jackson, S. A. (2008). Relation between neighborhood environments and obesity in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. American Journal of Epidemiology, 167, 1349–1357.Google Scholar
Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: a more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17, 313–335.Google Scholar
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling, 4, 599–620.Google Scholar
Nel, J. A., Valchev, V. H., Rothmann, S., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., Meiring, D., & De Bruin, G. P. (2012). Exploring the personality structure in the 11 languages of South Africa. Journal of Personality, 80, 915–948.Google Scholar
Nezlek, J. B. (2011). Multilevel modeling and cross-cultural research. In Matsumoto, D. & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 299–347). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ng, W., & Diener, E. (2014). What matters to the rich and the poor? Subjective well-being, financial satisfaction, and postmaterialist needs across the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 326–338.Google Scholar
Ng, J. C. K., Chan, W., Kwan, J. L. Y., & Chen, S. X. (2019). Unpacking structure-oriented cultural differences through a mediated moderation model: A tutorial with an empirical illustration. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 50, 358–380.Google Scholar
Niiya, Y., Ellsworth, P. C., & Yamaguchi, S. (2006). Amae in Japan and the United States: An exploration of a “culturally unique” emotion. Emotion, 6, 279–295.Google Scholar
Nielsen, S. S., & Krasnik, A. (2010). Poorer self-perceived health among migrants and ethnic minorities versus the majority population in Europe: a systematic review. International Journal of Public Health, 55, 357–371.Google Scholar
Nkaya, H. N., Huteau, M, & Bonnet, J. (1994). Retest effect on cognitive performance on the Raven‑38 Matrices in France and in the Congo. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 503–510.Google Scholar
Nyroos, M., Korhonen, J., Linnanmäki, K., & Svens-Liavåg, C. (2012). A cross-national comparison of test anxiety in Swedish and Finnish grade 3 pupils: Measured by the CTAS. Education Inquiry, 3, 615–636.Google Scholar
Ogbu, J. U. (1993). Differences in cultural frame of reference. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16, 483–506.Google Scholar
Ombrédane, A., Robaye, F., & Plumail, H. (1956). Résultats d’une application répétée du matrix‑couleur à une population de Noirs Congolais. Bulletin, Centre d’Etudes et Recherches Psychotechniques, 6, 129–147.Google Scholar
O’Neill, K. A., & McPeek, W. M. (2012). Item and test characteristics that are associated with differential item functioning. In Holland, P. W. & Wainer, H. (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 255–276). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660–679.Google Scholar
Ortiz, F. A., Church, A. T., Vargas-Flores, J. J., Ibáñez-Reyes, J., Flores-Galaz, M., Iuit-Briceño, J. I., & Escamilla, J. M. (2007). Are indigenous personality dimensions culture-specific? Mexican inventories and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 618–649.Google Scholar
Ozakinci, G., Boratav, H. B., & Mora, P. A. (2011). Modern health worries, health care utilization, and symptom reporting: A cross-cultural comparison, Behavioral Medicine, 37, 35–41.Google Scholar
Özkan, T., Lajunen, T., Chliaoutakis, J. E., Parker, D., & Summala, H. (2006). Cross-cultural differences in driving behaviours: A comparison of six countries. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 9, 227–242.Google Scholar
Palisi, B. J., & Canning, C. (1983). Urbanism and social psychological well-being: A cross-cultural test of three theories. Sociological Quarterly, 24, 527–543.Google Scholar
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. In Robinson, J. P., & Shaver, R. P.. (Eds.), Measures of social psychological attitudes series (Vol 1, pp.17–59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pearl, J. (2009). Understanding propensity scores. Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Penfield, R. D. (2001). Assessing differential item functioning among multiple groups: A comparison of three Mantel-Haenszel procedures. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 235–259.Google Scholar
Penfield, R. D. (2005). DIFAS: Differential Item Functioning Analysis System. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 150–151.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. F., Smith, P. B., Akande, A., Ayestaran, S., Bochner, S., Callan, V. … Viedge, C. (1995). Role conflict, ambiguity, and overload: A 21-nation study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 429–452.Google Scholar
Phalet, K., & Kosic, A. (2006). Acculturation in European societies. In Sam, D. L. & Berry, J. W. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 331–348). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pike, K. L. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of structure of human behavior (2nd ed.). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Plake, B. S. (1980). A comparison of a statistical and subjective procedure to ascertain item validity: One step in the test validation process. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40, 397–404.Google Scholar
Poguntke, T., & Webb, P. (Eds.). (2007). The presidentialization of politics: A comparative study of modern democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poortinga, Y. H. (1989). Equivalence of cross‑cultural data: An overview of basic issues. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 737–756.Google Scholar
Poortinga, Y. H. (1993). Cross-culturally invariant personality variables: A study in India and The Netherlands. In an Heck, G. L., Bonaiuto, P., Deary, I. J., & Nowack, W. (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 4, pp. 105–153). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
Poortinga, Y. H., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (1987). Explaining cross-cultural differences: Bias analysis and beyond. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 259–282.Google Scholar
Poortinga, Y. H., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., Joe, R. C., & Van de Koppel, J. M. H. (1987). Peeling the onion called culture: A synopsis. In Kagitcibasi, C. (Ed.), Growth and progress in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 22–34). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Poortinga, Y. H., & Van der Flier, H. (1988). The meaning of item bias in ability tests. In Irvine, S. H. & Berry, J. W. (Eds.), Human abilities in cultural context (pp. 166–183). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pornprasertmanit, S., Miller, P., Schoemann, A., & Rosseel, Y. (2016). semTools. Useful tools for structural equation modeling. R package 0.4-11.Google Scholar
Rabe-Hesketh, S., Skrondal, A., & Pickles, A. (2004). Generalized multilevel structural equation modeling. Psychometrika, 69, 167–190. doi:10.1007/BF02295939Google Scholar
Raju, N. S., Drasgow, F., & Slinde, J. A. (1993). An empirical comparison of the area methods, Lord’S Chi-square test, and the Mantel-Haenszel technique for assessing differential item functioning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 301–314.Google Scholar
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212.Google Scholar
Rammstedt, B., Kemper, C. J., & Borg, I. (2013). Correcting Big Five personality measurements for acquiescence: An 18‐country cross‐cultural study. European Journal of Personality, 27, 71–81.Google Scholar
Randolph, J. J., Falbe, K., Manuel, A. K., & Balloun, J. L. (2014). A step-by-step guide to propensity score matching in R. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 19(18). http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=19&n=18.Google Scholar
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. 1). Sage.Google Scholar
Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. Section 1: General overview. Oxford: Oxford Psychologists Press/San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Ray, A., & Margaret, W. (Eds.). (2003). PISA Programme for international student assessment (PISA) PISA 2000 technical report. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
Reese, J. B., Blackford, A., Sussman, J., Okuyama, T., Akechi, T., Bainbridge, D., Howell, D., & Snyder, C. F. (2015). Cancer patients’ function, symptoms and supportive care needs: a latent class analysis across cultures. Quality of Life Research, 24, 135–146.Google Scholar
Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667–696.Google Scholar
Reise, S. P., Widaman, K, F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 552–566.Google Scholar
Resick, C. J., Hanges, P. J., Dickson, M. W., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2006). A cross-cultural examination of the endorsement of ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 345–359.Google Scholar
Revelle, W. (2016). psych. Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. R package 1.6.4.Google Scholar
Rindermann, H. (2007). The g‐factor of international cognitive ability comparisons: The homogeneity of results in PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS and IQ‐tests across nations. European Journal of Personality, 21, 667–706.Google Scholar
Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review, 15, 351–357.Google Scholar
Rogers, H. J., & Swaminathan, H. (1993). A comparison of logistic regression and Mantel‑Haenszel procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 105–116.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39, 33–38.Google Scholar
Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (1984). Socially‑desirable response and acquiescence in a cross‑cultural survey of mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 25, 189–197.Google Scholar
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.Google Scholar
Rossier, J., Aluja, A., Blanch, A., Barry, O., Hansenne, M., Carvalho, A. F., … Karagonlar, G. (2016). Cross-cultural generalizability of the Alternative Five-factor Model using the Zuckerman–Kuhlman–Aluja Personality Questionnaire. European Journal of Personality, 30, 139–157.Google Scholar
Różycka-Tran, J., Boski, P., & Wojciszke, B. (2015). Belief in a Zero-Sum Game as a social axiom. A 37-nation study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46, 525–548.Google Scholar
Rudmin, F. W., & Ahmadzadeh, V. (2001). Psychometric critique of acculturation psychology: The case of Iranian migrants in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42, 41–56.Google Scholar
Rudner, L. M., Getson, P. R., & Knight, D. L. (1980). A Monte Carlo comparison of seven biased item detection techniques. Journal of Educational Measurement, 17, 1–10.Google Scholar
Rutkowski, L., & Svetina, D. (2014). Assessing the hypothesis of measurement invariance in the context of large-scale international surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74, 31–57.Google Scholar
Rutkowski, L., & Svetina, D. (2017). Measurement invariance in international surveys: Categorical indicators and fit measure performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 30, 39–51.Google Scholar
Sacco, J. M., Scheu, C. R., Ryan, A. M., & Schmitt, N. (2003). An investigation of race and sex similarity effects in interviews: A multilevel approach to relational demography. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 852–865.Google Scholar
Salomon, J. A., Tandon, A., & Murray, C. J. (2004). Comparability of self rated health: Cross sectional multi-country survey using anchoring vignettes. BMJ, 328(7434), 258–261.Google Scholar
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2001). Lexical studies of indigenous personality factors: Premises, products, and prospects. Journal of Personality, 69, 847–879.Google Scholar
Saucier, G., Kenner, J., Iurino, K., Malham, P. B., Chen, Z., Thalmayer, A. G., … & Çankaya, B. (2015). Cross-cultural differences in a global “Survey of World Views”. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46, 53–70.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1977). Development of a general solution to the problem of validity generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 529–540.Google Scholar
Schmitt, A. P., Holland, P. W., & Dorans, H. J. (2012). Evaluating hypotheses about differential item functioning. In Holland, P. W. & Wainer, H. (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 281–315). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2007). The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 173–212.Google Scholar
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2016). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. (2011). Values: Cultural and individual. In van de Vijver, F. J. R., Chasiotis, A., & Breugelmans, S. M. (Eds.), Fundamental questions in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 463–493). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 11.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. (2014). Rethinking the concept and measurement of societal culture in light of empirical findings. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 5–13.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Torres, C., Dirilen‐Gumus, O., & Butenko, T. (2017). Value tradeoffs propel and inhibit behavior: Validating the 19 refined values in four countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 241–258.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H., & Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities: cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 1010–1028.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H., Verkasalo, M., Antonovsky, A., & Sagiv, L. (1997). Value priorities and social desirability: Much substance, some style. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 3–18.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. J., & Zamboanga, B. L. (2008). Testing Berry’s model of acculturation: A confirmatory latent class approach. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14, 275–285.Google Scholar
Serpell, R. (1979). How specific are perceptual skills? British Journal of Psychology, 70, 365–380.Google Scholar
Serpell, R. (1993). The significance of schooling. Life-journeys in an African society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Serpell, R. (2011). Social responsibility as a dimension of intelligence, and as an educational goal: Insights from programmatic research in an African society. Child Development Perspectives, 5, 126–133.Google Scholar
Shaver, P., Wu, S., & Schwartz, J. (1992). Cross-cultural similarities and differences in emotion and its representation. A prototype approach. In Clark, M. S. (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 175–212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Shebani, M. F. A., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Poortinga, Y. H. (2008). Memory development in Libyan and Dutch school children. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 419–438.Google Scholar
Shi, D., Song, H., & Lewis, M. D. (2019). The impact of partial factorial invariance on cross-group comparisons. Assessment, 26, 1217–1233.Google Scholar
Sigel, I. E. (1988). Commentary: Cross‑cultural studies of parental influence on children’s achievement. Human Development, 31, 384–390.Google Scholar
Singh, J. (1995). Now you see it, now you don’t: A cautionary note on comparative cross-national analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 26, 597–619.Google Scholar
Sinha, D. (1996). Indigenizing psychology. In Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., & Pandey, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology (2nd ed., vol. 1, pp. 131–169). Chicago, IL: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Sisson, E. D. (1948). Forced choice—The new army rating. Personnel Psychology, 1, 365–381.Google Scholar
Skaggs, G., & Lissitz, R. W. (1992). The consistency of detecting item bias across different test administrations: Implications of another failure. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 227–242.Google Scholar
Smith, E. V., & Smith, R. M. (2004). Introduction to Rasch measurement: Theory, models and applications. Maple Grove, MN: Jam Press.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. (2015). To lend helping hands in-group favoritism, Uncertainty avoidance, and the national frequency of pro-social behaviors. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46, 759–771.Google 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, NY: Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Smith, P. B., Harb, C., Lonner, W., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2001). JCCP between 1993 and 2000: Looking back and looking ahead. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 9–17.Google Scholar
Smith, P. B. & Peterson, M. F. (1988). Leadership, organizations and culture. Organization Studies, 12, 327–328.Google Scholar
Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross‐cultural health care research: A clear and user‐friendly guideline. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17, 268–274.Google Scholar
Spencer‐Oatey, H., & Franklin, P. (2014). Intercultural interaction. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross‐national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78–107.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Practical intelligence in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stevenson, H. W., Stigler, J. W., Lee, S., Kitamura, S., Kimura, S., & Kato, T. (1986). Achievement in mathematics. In Stevenson, H. W., Azuma, H., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 201–216). New York, NY: Freeman.Google Scholar
Stigler, J. W., & Perry, M. (1988). Mathematics learning in Japanese, Chinese, and American classrooms. New Directions for Child Development, 41, 27–54Google Scholar
Stigler, J. W., Lee, S., & Stevenson, H. W. (1987). Mathematics classrooms in Japan, Taiwan, and the United States. Child Development, 58, 1272–1285.Google Scholar
Super, C. M. (1981). Behavior development in infancy. In Munroe, R. H., Munroe, R. L., & Whiting, B. B. (Eds.), Handbook of cross‑cultural human development (pp. 181–270). New York, NY: Garland STPM Press.Google Scholar
Survey Research Center. (2011). Guidelines for best practice in cross-cultural surveys (3rd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. http://www.ccsg.isr.umich.edu/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
Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational measurement, 27, 361–370.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S. (2008). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Tan, P. N., Kumar, V., & Srivastava, J. (2004). Selecting the right objective measure for association analysis. Information Systems, 29, 293–313.Google Scholar
Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 354–365.Google Scholar
Te Nijenhuis, J., Tolboom, E., Resing, W. C. M., & Bleichrodt, N. (2004). Does cultural background influence the intellectual performance of children from immigrant groups? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20, 10–26.Google Scholar
Ten Berge, J. M. F. (1986). Rotatie naar perfecte congruentie en de Multipele Groep Methode. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 41, 218–225.Google Scholar
Terracciano, A., Abdel-Khalek, A. M., Adam, N., Adamovova, L., Ahn, C. K., Ahn, H. N., … & Avia, M. D. (2005). National character does not reflect mean personality trait levels in 49 cultures. Science, 310, 96–100.Google Scholar
Thalmayer, A. G., & Saucier, G. (2014). The questionnaire Big Six in 26 nations: Developing cross-culturally applicable Big Six, Big Five and Big Two inventories. European Journal of Personality, 28, 482–496.Google Scholar
Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (2012). Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. In Holland, P. W. & Wainer, H. (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 67–113). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 859–883.Google Scholar
Triandis, H. C., & Berry, J. W. (Eds.) (1980). Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. Methodology (Vol. 2). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118–128.Google Scholar
Trinidad, D. R., Pérez-Stable, E. J., White, M. M., Emery, S. L., & Messer, K. (2011). A nationwide analysis of US racial/ethnic disparities in smoking behaviors, smoking cessation, and cessation-related factors. American Journal of Public Health, 101, 699–706.Google Scholar
Tucker, L. R. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies (Personnel Research Section Report No. 984). Washington, DC: Department of the Army.Google Scholar
Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2012). International Standard Classification of Education. ISCED 2011. Montreal, Canada: Author.Google Scholar
Van de Gaer, E., Grisay, A., Schulz, W., & Gebhardt, E. (2012). The reference group effect: An explanation of the paradoxical relationship between academic achievement and self-confidence across countries Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 1205–1228.Google Scholar
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. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 770.Google Scholar
Van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 486–492.Google Scholar
Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (1997). Meta-analysis of cross-cultural comparisons of cognitive test performance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 678–709.Google Scholar
Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2002). Inductive reasoning in Zambia, Turkey, and The Netherlands: Establishing cross-cultural equivalence. Intelligence, 30, 313–351.Google Scholar
Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2009). Types of cross-cultural studies in cross-cultural psychology. In Online Readings in Psychology and Culture (Unit 3). http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss2/2/Google Scholar
Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2010). Capturing bias in structural equation modeling. In Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., & Billiet, J. (Eds.), Cross-cultural analysis: Methods and applications (pp. 3–34). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2015). Methodological aspects of cross-cultural research. In Gelfand, M., Hong, Y., & Chiu, C. Y. (Eds.), Handbook of advances in culture & psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 101–160). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2017). Test adaptations. In Leong, F. T. L., Bartram, D., Cheung, F., Geisinger, K. F. & Iliescu, D. (Eds). The ITC International handbook of testing and assessment (pp. 364–376). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2018a). Capturing bias in structural equation modeling. In Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., Billiet, J., & Meuleman, B. (Eds.), Cross-cultural analysis: Methods and applications (2nd ed., pp. 3–44). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2018b). Emic and etic measurement in large-scale assessments: Towards an integration. Presentation at the OECD-GESIS Seminar on Translating and Adapting Instruments in Large-Scale Assessments, Paris. Available at www.oecd.orgGoogle Scholar
Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Translating tests: Some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1, 89–99.Google Scholar
Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis of comparative research. In Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., & Pandey, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology (2nd ed., vol. 1, pp. 257–300). Chicago, IL: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Lonner, W. J. (1995). A bibliometric analysis of the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 591–602.Google Scholar
Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1994). Methodological issues in cross-cultural studies on parental rearing behavior and psychopathology. In Perris, C., Arrindell, W. A., & Eisemann, M. (Eds.), Parental rearing and psychopathology (pp. 173–197). Chicester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1997). Towards an integrated analysis of bias in cross-cultural assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 13, 29–37.Google Scholar
Van de Vijver, F. J. R., Van Hemert, D. A., & Poortinga, Y. H. (Eds.) (2008). Multilevel analysis of individuals and cultures. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Watkins, D. (2006). Assessing similarity of meaning at the individual and country level. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22, 69–77.Google Scholar
Van de Werfhorst, H. G., & Mijs, J. J. (2010). Achievement inequality and the institutional structure of educational systems: A comparative perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 407–428.Google Scholar
Van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Van Deth, J. W., Montero, J. R., & Westholm, A. (Eds.). (2007). Citizenship and involvement in European democracies: A comparative analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van Hemert, D. A., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., Poortinga, Y. H., & Georgas, J. (2002). Structural and functional equivalence of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire within and between countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1229–1249.Google Scholar
Van Herk, H., Poortinga, Y. H., & Verhallen, T. M. (2004). Response styles in rating scales: Evidence of method bias in data from six EU countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 346–360.Google Scholar
Van Schilt-Mol, T. M. M. L. (2007). Differential Item Functioning en itembias in de Cito-Eindtoets Basisonderwijs [Differential Item Functioning and item bias in the Cito-Eindtoets Basisonderwijs]. Amsterdam: Aksant.Google Scholar
Van Widenfelt, B. M., Treffers, P. D., De Beurs, E., Siebelink, B. M., & Koudijs, E. (2005). Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of assessment instruments used in psychological research with children and families. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8, 135–147.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, 3, 4–70.Google Scholar
Vignoles, V. L., Owe, E., Becker, M., Smith, P. B., Easterbrook, M. J., 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
Waller, N. G. (1998). EZDIF: Detection of uniform and nonuniform differential item functioning with the Mantel-Haenszel and logistic regression procedures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 391.Google Scholar
Watkins, D. (1989). The role of confirmatory factor analysis in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 685–701.Google Scholar
Weijters, B., Geuens, M., & Schillewaert, N. (2009). The individual consistency of acquiescence and extreme response style in self-report questionnaires. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34, 105–121.Google Scholar
Welkenhuysen-Gybels, J., Billiet, J., & Cambré, B. (2003). Adjustment for acquiescence in the assessment of the construct equivalence of Likert-type score items. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 702–722.Google Scholar
Werner, O. & Campbell, D.T. (1970). Translating, working through interpreters, and the problem of decentering. In Naroll, R. & Cohen, R. (Eds.). A handbook of method in cultural anthropology (pp. 398–420). New York, NY: American Museum of Natural History.Google Scholar
Wicherts, J. M., & Dolan, C. V. (2010). Measurement invariance in confirmatory factor analysis: An illustration using IQ test performance of minorities. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29, 39–47.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, L. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594–604.Google Scholar
Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Willis, G., & Miller, K. (2011). Cross-cultural cognitive interviewing: Seeking comparability and enhancing understanding. Field Methods, 23, 331–341.Google Scholar
Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models an evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73, 913–934.Google Scholar
Woods, C. M. (2009). Evaluation of MIMIC-model methods for DIF testing with comparison to two-group analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44, 1–27.Google Scholar
Yang, K. S., & Bond, M. H. (1990). Exploring implicit personality theories with indigenous or imported constructs: The Chinese case. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1087–1095.Google Scholar
Yeh, K. H., Yi, C. C., Tsao, W. C., & Wan, P. S. (2013). Filial piety in contemporary Chinese societies: A comparative study of Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China. International Sociology, 28, 277–296.Google Scholar
Yildirim, H. H., & Berberoglu, G. (2009). Judgmental and statistical DIF analyses of the PISA-2003 mathematics literacy items. International Journal of Testing, 9, 108–121.Google Scholar
Young, J. W., & Kobrin, J. L. (2001). Differential validity, differential prediction, and college admission testing: A comprehensive review and analysis. New York, NY: The College Board.Google Scholar
Yu, H. T. (2015). A typological and probabilistic approach for exploring cross-cultural differences two-level latent class models. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46, 3–18.Google Scholar
Zegers, F. E., & Ten Berge, J. M. F. (1985). A family of association coefficients for metric scales. Psychometrika, 50, 17–24.Google Scholar
Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (ordinal) item scores. Ottawa, Ontario: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.Google Scholar
Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Three generations of DIF analyses: Considering where it has been, where it is now, and where it is going. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4, 223–233.Google Scholar
Zumbo, B. D., & Thomas, D. R. (1997). A measure of effect size for a model-based approach for studying DIF. Prince George: University of Northern British Columbia, Edgeworth Laboratory for Quantitative Behavioral Science.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×