How to Obtain Comparable Measures for Cross-National Comparisons

Comparisons of means or associations between theoretical constructs of interest in cross-national comparative research assume measurement invariance, that is, that the same constructs are measured in the same way across the various nations under study. While it is intuitive, this assumption needs to...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 2019-06, Vol.71 (Suppl 1), p.157-186
Hauptverfasser: Cieciuch, Jan, Davidov, Eldad, Schmidt, Peter, Algesheimer, René
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 186
container_issue Suppl 1
container_start_page 157
container_title Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie
container_volume 71
creator Cieciuch, Jan
Davidov, Eldad
Schmidt, Peter
Algesheimer, René
description Comparisons of means or associations between theoretical constructs of interest in cross-national comparative research assume measurement invariance, that is, that the same constructs are measured in the same way across the various nations under study. While it is intuitive, this assumption needs to be statistically tested. An increasing number of sociological and social psychological studies have been published in the last decade in which the cross-national comparability of various scales such as human values, national identity, attitudes toward democracy, or religiosity, to name but a few, were tested. Many of these studies did not manage to fully achieve measurement invariance. In this study we review, in a nontechnical manner, the methodological literature on measurement invariance testing. We explain what it is, how to test for it, and what to do when measurement invariance across countries is not given in the data. Several approaches have been recently proposed in the literature on how to deal with measurement noninvariance. We illustrate one of these approaches with a large dataset of seven rounds from the European Social Survey (2002–2015) by estimating the most trustworthy means of human values, even when strict measurement invariance is not given in the data. We conclude with a summary and some critical remarks.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11577-019-00598-7
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2258227181</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2258227181</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c385t-e6fdaae37ad4a4687f05c76a967a8bec88b10d91ab438065e6f2394b06fc05d13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1Lw0AURQdRsFb_gKuA69H3ZjIf2SlFrVDtRsHd8JJMJKXN1JkU8d-bmoI7V3dz7uVyGLtEuEYAc5MQlTEcsOAAqrDcHLEJWo3cFvh-zCYAQnKhlTxlZymtBkgqjRN2Ow9fWR-yZdlT22WzsNlSpHLts2dPaRd9ypoQs1kMKfEX6tvQ0fqAtSl06ZydNLRO_uKQU_b2cP86m_PF8vFpdrfglbSq5143NZGXhuqccm1NA6oymgptyJa-srZEqAukMpcWtBp4IYu8BN1UoGqUU3Y17m5j-Nz51LtV2MXhTHJCKCuEQbunxEhV-8PRN24b2w3Fb4fg9qbcaMoNptyvKWeGkhxLaYC7Dx__pv9p_QAI82tc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2258227181</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>How to Obtain Comparable Measures for Cross-National Comparisons</title><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>Cieciuch, Jan ; Davidov, Eldad ; Schmidt, Peter ; Algesheimer, René</creator><creatorcontrib>Cieciuch, Jan ; Davidov, Eldad ; Schmidt, Peter ; Algesheimer, René</creatorcontrib><description>Comparisons of means or associations between theoretical constructs of interest in cross-national comparative research assume measurement invariance, that is, that the same constructs are measured in the same way across the various nations under study. While it is intuitive, this assumption needs to be statistically tested. An increasing number of sociological and social psychological studies have been published in the last decade in which the cross-national comparability of various scales such as human values, national identity, attitudes toward democracy, or religiosity, to name but a few, were tested. Many of these studies did not manage to fully achieve measurement invariance. In this study we review, in a nontechnical manner, the methodological literature on measurement invariance testing. We explain what it is, how to test for it, and what to do when measurement invariance across countries is not given in the data. Several approaches have been recently proposed in the literature on how to deal with measurement noninvariance. We illustrate one of these approaches with a large dataset of seven rounds from the European Social Survey (2002–2015) by estimating the most trustworthy means of human values, even when strict measurement invariance is not given in the data. We conclude with a summary and some critical remarks.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0023-2653</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1861-891X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11577-019-00598-7</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden</publisher><subject>Abhandlungen ; Comparative analysis ; Democracy ; International comparisons ; Measurement ; Methodology of the Social Sciences ; National identity ; Personality and Social Psychology ; Philosophy of the Social Sciences ; Polls &amp; surveys ; Religiosity ; Social Sciences ; Sociology</subject><ispartof>Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 2019-06, Vol.71 (Suppl 1), p.157-186</ispartof><rights>Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019</rights><rights>KZfSS is a copyright of Springer, (2019). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c385t-e6fdaae37ad4a4687f05c76a967a8bec88b10d91ab438065e6f2394b06fc05d13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c385t-e6fdaae37ad4a4687f05c76a967a8bec88b10d91ab438065e6f2394b06fc05d13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11577-019-00598-7$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11577-019-00598-7$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27321,27901,27902,33751,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cieciuch, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davidov, Eldad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmidt, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Algesheimer, René</creatorcontrib><title>How to Obtain Comparable Measures for Cross-National Comparisons</title><title>Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie</title><addtitle>Köln Z Soziol</addtitle><description>Comparisons of means or associations between theoretical constructs of interest in cross-national comparative research assume measurement invariance, that is, that the same constructs are measured in the same way across the various nations under study. While it is intuitive, this assumption needs to be statistically tested. An increasing number of sociological and social psychological studies have been published in the last decade in which the cross-national comparability of various scales such as human values, national identity, attitudes toward democracy, or religiosity, to name but a few, were tested. Many of these studies did not manage to fully achieve measurement invariance. In this study we review, in a nontechnical manner, the methodological literature on measurement invariance testing. We explain what it is, how to test for it, and what to do when measurement invariance across countries is not given in the data. Several approaches have been recently proposed in the literature on how to deal with measurement noninvariance. We illustrate one of these approaches with a large dataset of seven rounds from the European Social Survey (2002–2015) by estimating the most trustworthy means of human values, even when strict measurement invariance is not given in the data. We conclude with a summary and some critical remarks.</description><subject>Abhandlungen</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Democracy</subject><subject>International comparisons</subject><subject>Measurement</subject><subject>Methodology of the Social Sciences</subject><subject>National identity</subject><subject>Personality and Social Psychology</subject><subject>Philosophy of the Social Sciences</subject><subject>Polls &amp; surveys</subject><subject>Religiosity</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Sociology</subject><issn>0023-2653</issn><issn>1861-891X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1Lw0AURQdRsFb_gKuA69H3ZjIf2SlFrVDtRsHd8JJMJKXN1JkU8d-bmoI7V3dz7uVyGLtEuEYAc5MQlTEcsOAAqrDcHLEJWo3cFvh-zCYAQnKhlTxlZymtBkgqjRN2Ow9fWR-yZdlT22WzsNlSpHLts2dPaRd9ypoQs1kMKfEX6tvQ0fqAtSl06ZydNLRO_uKQU_b2cP86m_PF8vFpdrfglbSq5143NZGXhuqccm1NA6oymgptyJa-srZEqAukMpcWtBp4IYu8BN1UoGqUU3Y17m5j-Nz51LtV2MXhTHJCKCuEQbunxEhV-8PRN24b2w3Fb4fg9qbcaMoNptyvKWeGkhxLaYC7Dx__pv9p_QAI82tc</recordid><startdate>20190601</startdate><enddate>20190601</enddate><creator>Cieciuch, Jan</creator><creator>Davidov, Eldad</creator><creator>Schmidt, Peter</creator><creator>Algesheimer, René</creator><general>Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190601</creationdate><title>How to Obtain Comparable Measures for Cross-National Comparisons</title><author>Cieciuch, Jan ; Davidov, Eldad ; Schmidt, Peter ; Algesheimer, René</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c385t-e6fdaae37ad4a4687f05c76a967a8bec88b10d91ab438065e6f2394b06fc05d13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Abhandlungen</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Democracy</topic><topic>International comparisons</topic><topic>Measurement</topic><topic>Methodology of the Social Sciences</topic><topic>National identity</topic><topic>Personality and Social Psychology</topic><topic>Philosophy of the Social Sciences</topic><topic>Polls &amp; surveys</topic><topic>Religiosity</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Sociology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cieciuch, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davidov, Eldad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmidt, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Algesheimer, René</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cieciuch, Jan</au><au>Davidov, Eldad</au><au>Schmidt, Peter</au><au>Algesheimer, René</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>How to Obtain Comparable Measures for Cross-National Comparisons</atitle><jtitle>Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie</jtitle><stitle>Köln Z Soziol</stitle><date>2019-06-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>71</volume><issue>Suppl 1</issue><spage>157</spage><epage>186</epage><pages>157-186</pages><issn>0023-2653</issn><eissn>1861-891X</eissn><abstract>Comparisons of means or associations between theoretical constructs of interest in cross-national comparative research assume measurement invariance, that is, that the same constructs are measured in the same way across the various nations under study. While it is intuitive, this assumption needs to be statistically tested. An increasing number of sociological and social psychological studies have been published in the last decade in which the cross-national comparability of various scales such as human values, national identity, attitudes toward democracy, or religiosity, to name but a few, were tested. Many of these studies did not manage to fully achieve measurement invariance. In this study we review, in a nontechnical manner, the methodological literature on measurement invariance testing. We explain what it is, how to test for it, and what to do when measurement invariance across countries is not given in the data. Several approaches have been recently proposed in the literature on how to deal with measurement noninvariance. We illustrate one of these approaches with a large dataset of seven rounds from the European Social Survey (2002–2015) by estimating the most trustworthy means of human values, even when strict measurement invariance is not given in the data. We conclude with a summary and some critical remarks.</abstract><cop>Wiesbaden</cop><pub>Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden</pub><doi>10.1007/s11577-019-00598-7</doi><tpages>30</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0023-2653
ispartof Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 2019-06, Vol.71 (Suppl 1), p.157-186
issn 0023-2653
1861-891X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2258227181
source Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals; Sociological Abstracts
subjects Abhandlungen
Comparative analysis
Democracy
International comparisons
Measurement
Methodology of the Social Sciences
National identity
Personality and Social Psychology
Philosophy of the Social Sciences
Polls & surveys
Religiosity
Social Sciences
Sociology
title How to Obtain Comparable Measures for Cross-National Comparisons
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-12T11%3A34%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How%20to%20Obtain%20Comparable%20Measures%20for%20Cross-National%20Comparisons&rft.jtitle=K%C3%B6lner%20Zeitschrift%20f%C3%BCr%20Soziologie%20und%20Sozialpsychologie&rft.au=Cieciuch,%20Jan&rft.date=2019-06-01&rft.volume=71&rft.issue=Suppl%201&rft.spage=157&rft.epage=186&rft.pages=157-186&rft.issn=0023-2653&rft.eissn=1861-891X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11577-019-00598-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2258227181%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2258227181&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true