Examining the cross-national applicability of multi-item, multi-dimensional measures using generalizability theory
- 62 Downloads
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.
Keywordsmeasurement 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.
- Belch, G.E. and Belch, M.A. (2004) Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective, 6th edn, McGraw-Hill Irwin: Boston.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994) Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill: New York.Google Scholar
- 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
- Shavelson, R.J. and Webb, N.M. (1991) Generalizability Theory: A Primer, Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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