Equivalence of measurement across cultures is a prerequisite for the generalization of an instrument. The measurement equivalence of 10 value types derived from Schwartz's structural model of values and measured with the Schwartz Value Survey questionnaire is evaluated in 21 countries. Based on previous research by Schwartz and colleagues, the measurement equivalence of the 10 value types is tested separately using nested multigroup confirmatory factor analyses. Results indicate that it is possible for most value types to reach acceptable levels of configural and metric equivalence; only the dimension of Hedonism is rejected at these two levels of equivalence. Four value types (Benevolence, Conformity, Self-Direction, and Universalism) also show factor variance equivalence. The hypotheses of scalar and reliability equivalence are rejected for all value types. Indications are also given of the number of items to be included for measuring the value types at the different levels of equivalence.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aikake, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317-332.
2.
Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
Bollen, K.A. (1989a). A new Incremental Fit Index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 17, 303-316.
5.
Bollen, K.A. (1989b). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.
6.
Bond, M.H. (1988). Finding universal dimensions of individual variation in multicultural studies of values: The Rokeach and Chinese Value Surveys. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(6), 1009-1015.
7.
Borg, I. , & Lingoes, J.C. (1987). Multidimensional similarity structure analysis. New York: Springer Verlag.
8.
Bozdogan, H. (1987). Model selection and Aikake's information criterion (AIC): The general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika, 52, 345-370.
9.
Braithwaite, V.A. , & Law, H.G. (1985). Structure of human values: Testing the adequacy of the Rokeach Value Survey. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 250-263.
10.
Brislin, R.W. , Lonner, W., & Thorndike, R.M. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. New York: John Wiley.
11.
Browne, M.W. (1992). FITMOD: Point and interval estimates of measures of fit of a model [computer software].
12.
Browne, M.W. , & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Caprara, G.V. , Barbaranelli, C., Bermúdez, J, Maslach, C., & Ruch, W. (2000). Multivariate methods for the comparison of factor structures in cross-cultural research: An illustration with the Big Five Questionnaire. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(4), 437-464.
15.
Cheung, G.W. , & Rensvold, R.B. (2000). Assessing extreme and acquiescence response sets in cross-cultural research using structural equation modeling. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(2), 187-212.
16.
Chinese Culture Connection . (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18(2), 143-164.
17.
De Groot, A. , Koot, H.M., & Verhulst, F.C. (1994). Cross-cultural generalizability of the Child Behavior Checklist cross-informant syndromes. Psychological Assessment, 6, 225-230.
18.
Devos, T., Spini, D., & Schwartz, S.H. (in press). Structure and conflicts of human values: the role of religiosity, political orientation, patriotism, and trust in institutions. British Journal of Social Psychology.
19.
Feather, N.T. (1997). Values, national identification and favouritism towards the in-group. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(4), 467-476.
20.
Guttman, L.A. (1968). A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a configuration of points. Psychometrika, 33, 469-506.
21.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
22.
Hofstede, G. (1982). Dimensions of national cultures. In R. Rath, H.S. Asthana, D. Sinha, & J.B.H. Sinha (Eds.), Diversity and unity in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 173-187). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
23.
Hofstede, G. (1983). Dimensions of national cultures in fifty countries and three regions. In J.B. Deregowski, S. Dzivrawiec, & R.C. Annis (Eds.), Expiscations in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 335-355). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
24.
Hofstede, G. , & Bond, M.H. (1984). Hofstede's culture dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeach's Value Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15(4), 417-433.
25.
Hu, L. , & 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.
26.
Jöreskog, K.G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36, 409-426.
27.
Jöreskog, K.G. , & Sörbom, D. (1999). Lisrel 8.30 and Prelis 2.30. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
28.
Kruskal, J.B. , & Wish, M. (1990). Multidimensional scaling (15th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
29.
Little, T.D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 32(1), 53-76.
30.
McDonald, R.P. (1989). An index of goodness-of-fit based on noncentrality. Journal of Classification, 6, 97-103.
31.
McDonald, R.P. , & Marsh, H.W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 247-255.
32.
Mulaik, S.A. (1987). Toward a conception of causality applicable to experimentation and causal modeling. Child Development, 58, 18-32.
Ng, S.H. , Akhtar-Hosain, A.B.M., Ball, P., Bond, M.H., Hayashi, K., Lim, S.P., et al. (1982). Values in nine countries. In R. Rath, H.S. Asthana, & J.B.H. Sinha (Eds.), Diversity and unity in cross-cultural psychology (pp.196-205). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
35.
Raftery, A.E. (1993). Bayesian structural model selection in structural equation models. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 163-180). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
36.
Rokeach, M. (1967). Value survey. Sunnyvale, CA: Halgren Tests.
37.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
38.
Sagiv, L. , & Schwartz, S.H. (1995). Value priorities and readiness for out-group social contact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(3), 437-448.
39.
Satorra, A. , & Bentler, P.M. (1994). Corrections to test and statistic and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. Von Eye & C.C. Clogg (Eds.), Analysis of latent variables in developmental research (pp. 399-419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
Schmitt, M.J. , Schwartz, S.H., Steyer, R., & Schmitt, T. (1995). Measurement models for the Schwartz Values Inventory. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 9(2), 107-121.
41.
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461-464.
42.
Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
43.
Schwartz, S.H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values?Journal of Social Issues, 4, 19-45.
44.
Schwartz, S.H. , & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550-562.
45.
Schwartz, S.H. , & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550-562.
46.
Schwartz, S.H. , Lehmann, A., Melech, G., Burgess, S., & Harris, M. (2001). Validation of a theory of basic human values with a new instrument in new populations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 519-542.
47.
Schwartz, S.H. , & Sagie, G. (2000). Value consensus and importance: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(4), 465-497.
48.
Schwartz, S.H. , & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture-specifics in the content and structure of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(1), 92-116.
49.
Spini, D. (1997). Valeurs et représentations sociales des droits de l'homme: Une approche structurale [Values and social representations of human rights: A structural approach]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Geneva, No 243, Switzerland.
50.
Spini, D. , & Doise, W. (1998). Organizing principles of involvement in human rights and their social anchoring in value priorities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28(4), 603-622.
51.
Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. , & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78-90.
52.
Steiger, J.H. , & Lind, J.C. (1980, May). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.
53.
Tucker, L.R. , & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10.
54.
Van de Vijver, F. , & Leung, K. (1997a). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
55.
Van de Vijver, F. , & Leung, K. (1997b). Methods and data analysis of comparative research. In J.W. Berry, Y.H. Poortinga, & J. Pandey (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 257-300). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
56.
West, S.G. , Finch, J.F., & Curran, P.J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
57.
Windle, M. , Iwawaki, S., & Lerner, R.M. (1988). Cross-cultural comparability of temperament among Japanese and American preschool children. International Journal of Psychology, 23, 547-567.
