Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 469–483 | Cite as

Examining the cross-national applicability of multi-item, multi-dimensional measures using generalizability theory

  • S Durvasula
  • R G Netemeyer
  • J C Andrews
  • S Lysonski


Establishing the applicability of multi-item measures is important for making valid inferences when testing theories cross-nationally. Typically, researchers have relied upon the tenets of classical measurement theory (CT) using confirmatory factor model invariance testing to conclude that a unidimensional measure is applicable across countries. However, two important issues remain unresolved via CT techniques: (1) if the measure is found not to be invariant, CT tells us little as to why the measure varies across countries; and (2) if the measure is multi-dimensional, what factors affect its cross-national applicability? Our research seeks to address these issues and the cross-national measurement applicability of multi-dimensional scales via generalizability theory (GT). In this paper, we use a cross-national data set and simulated data sets to demonstrate the usefulness of GT to cross-national multi-dimensional measurement.


measurement cross-cultural scale validation generalizability theory 



The authors would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers and Professor Guliz Ger, the Departmental Editor of JIBS, for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.


  1. Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988) ‘Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach’, Psychological Bulletin 103 (3): 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balabanis, G., Diamantopoulos, A., Mueller, R.D. and Melewar, T.C. (2001) ‘The impact of nationalism, patriotism, and internationalism on consumer ethnocentric tendencies’, Journal of International Business Studies 32 (1): 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belch, G.E. and Belch, M.A. (2004) Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective, 6th edn, McGraw-Hill Irwin: Boston.Google Scholar
  4. Berry, J.W. (1980) ‘Introduction to methodology’, in H.C. Triandis and J.W. Berry (eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Methodology, Vol. 2, Allyn & Bacon: Boston, pp: 1–28.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, L.A. and Watson, D. (1995) ‘Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development’, Psychological Assessment 7 (3): 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cronbach, L.J., Rajarathnam, N. and Gleser, G.C. (1963) ‘Theory of generalizability: a liberalization of reliability theory’, British Journal of Statistical Psychology 16 (November): 137–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Durvasula, S., Andrews, J.C., Lysonski, S. and Netemeyer, R.G. (1993) ‘Assessing the Cross-national applicability of consumer behavior models: a model of attitude-toward-advertising-in-general’, Journal of Consumer Research 19 (March): 626–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Finn, A. and Kayande, U. (1997) ‘Reliability assessment and optimization of marketing measurement’, Journal of Marketing Research 34 (May): 262–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fu, P.P, Kennedy, J., Tata, J., Yukl, G., Bond, M.H., Peng, T., Srinivas, E.S., Howell, J.P., Prieto, L., Koopman, P., Boonstra, J.J., Pasa, S., Lacassagne, M., Higashide, H. and Cheosakul, A.A. (2004) ‘The impact of societal cultural values and individual social beliefs on the perceived effectiveness of managerial influence strategies: a Meso approach’, Journal of International Business Studies 35 (4): 277–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Horn, J.L. (1991) ‘Comments on ‘issues in factorial invariance’’, in L.M. Collins and J.L. Horn (eds.), Best Methods for the Analysis of Change, American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, pp: 114–125.Google Scholar
  11. Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999) ‘Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives’, Structural Equation Modeling 6 (1): 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lenartowicz, T. and Johnson, J.P. (2003) ‘A cross-national assessment of the values of Latin American managers: contrasting hues or shades of gray’, Journal of International Business Studies 34 (4): 266–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marsh, H.W. (1994) ‘Confirmatory factor analysis models of factorial invariance: a multi-faceted approach’, Structural Equation Modeling 1 (1): 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mullen, M.R. (1995) ‘Diagnosing measurement equivalence in cross-national research’, Journal of International Business Studies 26 (3): 573–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Netemeyer, R.G., Bearden, W.O. and Sharma, S. (2003) Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Neuberg, S.L., West, S.G., Thompson, M.M. and Judice, T.N. (1997) ‘On Dimensionality, discriminant validity, and the role of psychometric analyses in personality theory and measurement: reply to Kruglanski et al.'s (1997) defense of the Need For Closure Scale’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73 (5): 1017–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994) Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill: New York.Google Scholar
  18. Onkvisit, S. and Shaw, S.S. (1999) ‘Standardized international advertising: some research issues and implications’, Journal of Advertising Research 39 (6): 19–24.Google Scholar
  19. Rao, C.R. (1971) ‘Minimum variance quadratic unbiased estimation of variance components’, Journal of Multivariate Analysis 1 (December): 445–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rentz, J.O. (1987) ‘Generalizability theory: a comprehensive method for assessing and improving the dependability of marketing measures’, Journal of Marketing Research 24 (February): 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reynolds, N.L., Simintiras, A.C. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2003) ‘Theoretical justification of sampling choices in international marketing research: key issues and guidelines for researchers’, Journal of International Business Studies 34 (1): 80–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sharma, S. and Weathers, D. (2003) ‘Assessing generalizability of scales used in cross-national research’, International Journal of Research in Marketing 20 (3): 287–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shavelson, R.J. and Webb, N.M. (1991) Generalizability Theory: A Primer, Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  24. Shavelson, R.J., Webb, N.M. and Rowley, G.L. (1989) ‘Generalizability theory’, American Psychologist 44 (6): 922–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shimp, T.A. and Sharma, S. (1987) ‘Consumer ethnocentrism: construction and validation of the CETSCALE’, Journal of Marketing Research 24 (August): 280–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Steenkamp, J.B.E.M., Batra, R. and Alden, D.L. (2001) ‘How perceived brand globalness creates brand value’, Journal of International Business Studies 34 (1): 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. and Baumgartner, H. (1998) ‘Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research’, Journal of Consumer Research 25 (June): 78–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Van de Vijver, F.J.R. and Leung, K. (1997) ‘Methods and data analysis of comparative research’, in J.W. Berry, Y.P. Poortinga and J. Pandey (eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Volume One: Theory and Method, Allyn & Bacon: Needham Heights, MA, pp: 247–300.Google Scholar
  29. Venkatesh, A. (1995) ‘Ethnoconsumerism: a new paradigm to study cultural and cross-cultural consumer behavior’, in J. Costa and G. Bamossy (eds.), Marketing in a Multicultural World: Ethnicity, Nationalism, and Cultural Identity, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, pp: 26–67.Google Scholar
  30. Whitman, M.E., Townsend, A.M. and Hendrickson, A.R. (1999) ‘Cross-national differences in computer-use ethics: a nine-country study’, Journal of International Business Studies 30 (4): 673–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • S Durvasula
    • 1
  • R G Netemeyer
    • 2
  • J C Andrews
    • 3
  • S Lysonski
    • 3
  1. 1.College of Business Administration, Marquette UniversityMilwaukeeUSA
  2. 2.McIntire School of Commerce, University of VirginiaVirginiaUSA
  3. 3.Department Of MarketingMarquette UniversityMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations