On Enhancing the Cross-Cultural Comparability of Likert-Scale Personality and Value Measures: A Comparison of Common Procedures
On Enhancing the Cross-Cultural Comparability of Likert-Scale Personality and Value Measures: A Comparison of Common Procedures
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/per.2132
复制
发表时间：
2017-11-01
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
Zhang, Rui
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
He, Jia;Van de Vijver, Fons J. R.;Zhang, Rui
本研究旨在评估一些已提出的程序，以提高个性和价值数据的跨文化可比性。使用从16个国家的大学生收集的数据，比较了先验程序(锚定小片段和反应风格的直接测量（即默许、极端、中点反应和社会可取性）、侧重于分析前数据转换的后验程序（ipsalization和项目打包）和两种数据建模程序（将数据视为连续或有序类别）。我们发现(i)锚定小片段缺乏不变性，因此它们不是无偏见的；（ii）锚定小片段显示出比原始分数更高的内部一致性，而所有其他校正程序，特别是ipsalization，显示出较低的内部一致性；（iii）在测量不变性测试中，没有程序产生标量不变性；锚定小品和项目打包略微提高了可比性，响应方式修正对可比性没有影响，而僵化导致可比性降低；（iv）将李克特量表数据作为分类处理导致更高水平的可比性；(v)不同程序提取的量表因子得分呈现相似的相关模式；（六）回答风格修正是唯一能提高国家层面责任心外部效度的程序。我们的结论是，尽管没有任何程序可以解决所有的可比性问题，但锚定小片段、打包和将数据作为有序类别处理似乎有望减轻可比性。我们建议在不加批判地应用这些程序时要谨慎。版权所有2017年欧洲人格心理学协会
This study aims to evaluate a number of procedures that have been proposed to enhance cross-cultural comparability of personality and value data. A priori procedures (anchoring vignettes and direct measures of response styles (i.e. acquiescence, extremity, midpoint responding, and social desirability), a posteriori procedures focusing on data transformations prior to analysis (ipsatization and item parcelling), and two data modelling procedures (treating data as continuous vs as ordered categories) were compared using data collected from university students in 16 countries. We found that (i) anchoring vignettes showed lack of invariance, so they were not bias-free; (ii) anchoring vignettes showed higher internal consistencies than raw scores where all other correction procedures, notably ipsatization, showed lower internal consistencies; (iii) in measurement invariance testing, no procedure yielded scalar invariance; anchoring vignettes and item parcelling slightly improved comparability, response style correction did not affect it, and ipsatization resulted in lower comparability; (iv) treating Likert-scale data as categorical resulted in higher levels of comparability; (v) factor scores of scales extracted from different procedures showed similar correlational patterning; and (vi) response style correction was the only procedure that suggested improvement in external validity of country-level conscientiousness. We conclude that, although no procedure resolves all comparability issues, anchoring vignettes, parcelling, and treating data as ordered categories seem promising to alleviate incomparability. We advise caution in uncritically applying any of these procedures. Copyright (c) 2017 European Association of Personality Psychology