On the Comparability of Constructs in Cross-Cultural Research

By T. Little. 2000

129 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Computer Networks and Communications, Management Science and Operations Research, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4ac62c4590d08a153fd522f52a4736dc01a65091

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Computer Networks and Communications

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Measurement Invariance Conventions and Reporting: The State of the Art and Future Directions for Psychological Research (2016, background): “…turn of the 21st century, methodologists increasingly directed attention to the significance of measurement invariance, especially within a structural equation modeling framework (Cheung & Rensvold, 1999, 2002; Little, 2000; Rensvold & Cheung, 1998; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998; Vandenberg, 2002).”
Parent and Teacher Autonomy-Support in Russian and U.S. Adolescents (2001, methodology): “According to Little (1997, 2000), the test of construct comparability with MACS methodology has to be done on two levels: Measurement equivalence has to be established on an indicator-to-construct level, and the cross-group comparison of the reliable construct parameters (means, variances and…”
On the interpersonal regulation of emotions: Emotional reliance across gender, relationships, and cultures (2005, methodology): “To ensure measurement equivalence and comparability of constructs, we employed MACS analyses ( Little, 1997, 2000 ).”
On being yourself in different cultures: ideal and actual self-concept, autonomy support, and well-being in China, Russia, and the United States (2009, methodology): “Following recommendations by Byrne (2001, 2002) and Little (1997, 2000) , structural equation modeling was used to test for factorial invariance and measurement comparability across groups.”
Construct Equivalence across Groups: An Unexplored Issue in Mentoring Research (2005, background): “Therefore, ensuring construct comparability when testing for cross-group differences is of paramount importance in building a nomological network for mentoring research (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955; Little, 2000).”
Standardization to Account for Cross-Cultural Response Bias (2004, methodology): “Whereas Matsumoto et al. (1997) used presumably highly intercorrelated social values related to individualism-collectivism, Kirkman and Shapiro (2001) used four different value dimensions as well as variables at a team level that are less likely to be highly correlated.”
Methodological Issues in Cross-Cultural Counseling Research (2008, methodology): “…and covariance structures analysis (MACS) also provide information about biased items or indicators (e.g., Byrne, 2004; Cheung & Rensvold, 2000; Little, 1997, 2000), with the MACS method also providing information about mean differences between groups on latent constructs (e.g., Ployhart &…”
Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: a self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. (2003, methodology): “To ensure that the constructs we examine are comparable across samples, we used means and covariance structure (MACS) analyses (Little, 1997, 2000).”
Autonomy and Competence in German and American University Students: A Comparative Study Based on Self-Determination Theory. (2004, unknown): “Little, T. D. (2000).”
Analyzing observed composite differences across groups: Is partial measurement invariance enough? (2013, background): “…latent variable models instead of composite analyses since it enables testing the factor structure and its comparability, correcting for measurement error, and testing for measurement invariance, I have to note that a successful test of the latter does not guarantee the lack of bias (Little, 2000).”
Detecting Violations of Factorial Invariance Using Data-Based Specification Searches: A Monte Carlo Study (2007, background): “Recently, testing for the invariance of intercepts (i.e., scalar invariance) has gained attention as a required step for testing invariance across groups (Little, 1997, 2000; Meredith, 1993).”
Application of the scenario questionnaire of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism to the assessment of cultural distance and cultural fit (2005, unknown): “One such technique is called Means and Covariance Structure (MACS) analysis (Little, 1997, 2000) which has been widely and successfully used in numerous cross-cultural studies (Chirkov & Ryan, 2001, 2004; Chirkov, Ryan, Kim, & Kaplan, 2003; Chirkov, Ryan, & Willness, 2005; Grob, Wearing, Little, &…”
Measurement Invariance for Latent Constructs in Multiple Populations (2012, background): “Various aspects of this important limitation have received considerable attention in the recent literature on MI (e.g., Cheung & Rensvold, 1999; Little, 2000; Meade & Lautenschlager, 2004; Millsap, 2011; Rensvold & Cheung, 2001; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000; Woods, 2009; Yoon & Millsap, 2007).”
The Geographic Distribution of Big Five Personality Traits (2007, background): “Particularly troublesome has been establishing whether the mean scores across different cultures show metric or scalar equivalence (Byrne & Campbell, 1999; Little, 2000).”
Organic food consumption in Europe: International segmentation based on value system differences (2011, background): “Little (2000) noted that items on a scale must be interpreted and responded to in the same way across groups, and that, after this condition has been met, the cultural differences could be examined in valid andmeaningful ways.”
Toward a Further Understanding of and Improvement in Measurement Invariance Methods and Procedures (2002, background): “A second goal is to educate others that there are reasons to carefully monitor the literature—a concern recently expressed as well by Little (2000).”