Assessing Cross-Cultural Validity of Fear of Crime Measures through Comparisons between Linguistic Communities in Belgium

Abstract

A B S T R A C TIn order for cross-cultural comparisons of 'fear of crime' to be meaningful, the instruments used to measure the constructs -both 'fear of crime' itself and other constructs used to explain it -have to exhibit adequate cross-cultural equivalence. Not only does potential cross-cultural bias invalidate 'fear of crime' comparisons, it also distorts the true relationships between explanatory variables and 'fear of crime' when testing a conceptual model. This paper uses comparisons between the Flemish-and French-speaking populations of Belgium to explore these problems of cross-cultural equivalence. The data are provided by the Belgian Safety Monitor 1998, a large-scale national survey focusing on 'fear of crime' and related topics. Cross-cultural equivalence within a theory-driven contextual model was assessed using structural equation modelling (LISREL). A theoretically relevant, exploratory model with 'fear of crime' as the dependent variable was tested. Both the dependent and independent constructs in the model were assessed for their cross-cultural equivalence. In principle, this allows a model that is free from cultural bias to be specified. However, in this case there was no evidence of measurement variance between the two cultural groups.

Testing for cultural measurement equivalence in research on domestic and international tertiary students' fear of crime

“…I do not feel safe walking to the school, park, or store in this neighborhood. Pauwels and Pleysier (2005) Linguistic communities in Belgium Multiple group comparison was used to test for CME. Only final CME results for one-factor, multi-factor and structural models reported; but no information concerning omnibus, cofigural, metric, and scalar tests provided.…”

“…First, it is noted that there is a lack of definitional consistency and sound operationalization of fear of crime and associated constructs. In many cases, measures for fear of crime, perceived risk, perceptions of safety, and behavioral adaptations are used interchangeably or are an amalgam of these constructs labeled as fear of crime (Delone, 2008; Pauwels & Pleysier, 2008; Xu et al., 2005). Second, testing for CME/invariance prior to comparison being undertaken across different cohorts is absent.…”

“…Omnibus tests and tests for configurable invariance have been largely ignored and the sequences of testing for CME vary. Pleysier and colleagues (Pauwels & Pleysier, 2005; Pleysier, Pauwels, Vervaeke, & Goethals, 2005; Pleysier, Vervaeke, & Goethals, 2004) highlight issues relating to CME across linguistically divergent communities and over time. Nonetheless, this series of investigations fails to report results of omnibus, configurable, metric, and scalar tests and mainly focus on modifying models to identify variance on the basis of the modification indices.…”

Fear of crime among citizens of Turkey

“…This subject gained much attention in the West, and research on fear of crime had almost exclusively been concentrated in the United States and other English-speaking nations. Moreover, in line with growing interest in cross-cultural research in the field of criminology, recent studies had also examined fear of crime in European countries such as Belgium (De Donder, Verte, & Messelis, 2005;Pauwels & Pleysier, 2005), Finland (Salmi, Gronroos, & Keskinen, 2004), and Italy (Miceli, Roccato, & Rosato, 2004). Even though the cultural context in which crime is defined and people act is vital to understanding crime, criminal behavior, and its impact (Robertson, 2006), only a limited number of studies investigated fear of crime in non-Western countries (Adu-Mireku, 2002;Dammert & Malone, 2006;Hwang, 2006;Johnson, 2006).…”

Temporal Invariance in Repeated Cross-Sectional ‘Fear of Crime’ Research

“…Measurement invariance or equivalence is such an issue. Previously, we have argued that in order to compare fear of crime levels across groups or, as we will deal with here, across time in a meaningful way, the instruments used to measure the concept have to exhibit adequate equivalence (Pleysier et al, 2004;Pleysier et al, 2003;Pauwels and Pleysier, 2005). As large scale longitudinal and international, cross-national or cross-cultural surveys gain attention within criminological research as well, it is our firm belief that the methodological issues discussed here, i.e.…”