Measurement invariance and validity in cross-cultural research

References

Alemán, J., & Woods, D. (2016). Value Orientations From the World Values Survey How Comparable Are They Cross-Nationally? Comparative Political Studies, 49(8), 1039–1067. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414015600458

Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Multiple-Group Factor Analysis Alignment. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(4), 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.919210

Cieciuch, J., Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., Algesheimer, R., & Schwartz, S. H. (2014). Comparing results of an exact vs. an approximate (Bayesian) measurement invariance test: a cross-country illustration with a scale to measure 19 human values. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 982. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00982

Davidov, E., Meuleman, B., Cieciuch, J., Schmidt, P., & Billiet, J. (2014). Measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 50–75. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043137

Davidov, E., Muthen, B., & Schmidt, P. (2018). Measurement Invariance in Cross-National Studies: Challenging Traditional Approaches and Evaluating New Ones. Sociological Methods & Research, 47(4), 631–636. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118789708

Lomazzi, V. (2018). Using alignment optimization to test the measurement invariance of gender role attitudes in 59 countries. Methods, Data, Analyses : A Journal for Quantitative Methods and Survey Methodology (Mda), 12(1), 77–103. https://doi.org/10.12758/mda.2017.09 

Meuleman, B., Davidov, E., & Seddig, D. (2018). Editorial:Comparative Survey Analysis – Comparability and Equivalence of Measures. Methods, Data, Analyses : A Journal for Quantitative Methods and Survey Methodology (Mda), 12(1), 4. https://www.mda.gesis.org/index.php/mda/article/view/214/226

Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: A more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17, 313–335. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0026802

Seddig, D., & Leitgöb, H. (2018). Approximate measurement invariance and longitudinal confirmatory factor analysis: concept and application with panel data. Survey Research Methods, 12(1), 29–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.18148/srm/2018.v12i1.7210       

Sokolov, B. (2018). The Index of Emancipative Values: Measurement Model Misspecifications. American Political Science Review, 112(2), 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055417000624

van de Schoot, R., Kluytmans, A., Tummers, L., Lugtig, P., Hox, J., & Muthen, 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. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00770

van de Vijver, F., & Tanzer, N. K. (2004). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: an overview. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, 54(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2003.12.004

Welzel, C., Brunkert, L., Inglehart, R., & Kruse, S. (2019). Measurement Equivalence? A Tale of False Obsessions and a Cure. World Values Research, 11(3), 54–84. http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/AJPublications.jsp?CndPUTYPE=1,5&PUID=178

Welzel, C., & Inglehart, R. F. (2016). Misconceptions of Measurement Equivalence: Time for a Paradigm Shift. Comparative Political Studies, 49(8), 1068–1094. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414016628275

Pages: 1 2