Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross‐National Consumer Research

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Assessing the applicability of frameworks developed in one country to other countries is an important step in establishing the generalizability of consumer behavior theories. In order for such comparisons to be meaningful, however, the instruments used to measure the theoretical constructs of interest have to exhibit adequate cross-national equivalence. We review the various forms of measurement invariance that have been proposed in the literature, organize them into a coherent conceptual framework that ties different requirements of measure equivalence to the goals of the research, and propose a practical, sequential testing procedure for assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. The approach is based on multisample confirmatory factor analysis and clarifies under what conditions meaningful comparisons of construct conceptualizations, construct means, and relationships between constructs are possible. An empirical application dealing with the single-factor construct of consumer ethnocentrism in Belgium, Great Britain, and Greece is provided to illustrate the procedure. The University of Chicago PressA might be due to true differences between countries on the underlying construct or due to systematic biases in the fuller understanding of consumer behavior and further advancement of consumer research as an academic discipline requires that the validity of models of way people from different countries respond to certain items. Similarly, cross-national differences in relationconsumer behavior developed in one country (mostly the United States) be examined in other countries as well ships between scale scores could indicate real differences in structural relations between constructs or scaling arti- (Bagozzi 1994; Dholakia, Firat, and Bagozzi 1980). A key concern in extending theories and their associated facts, differences in scale reliability, or even nonequivalence of the constructs involved. Findings of no differconstructs to other countries is whether the instruments designed to measure the relevant constructs are crossences between countries are open to analogous alternative interpretations. As succinctly stated by Horn (1991, p. nationally invariant (Hui and Triandis 1985). Measurement invariance refers to ''whether or not, under different 119): ''Without evidence of measurement invariance, the conditions of observing and studying phenomena, meaconclusions of a study must be weak.'' surement operations yield measures of the same attribute'' Although a variety of techniques have been used to (Horn and McArdle 1992, p. 117). If evidence supporting assess various aspects of measurement equivalence (cf. a measure's invariance is lacking, conclusions ba...

The assessment of psychopathology among traumatized refugees: measurement invariance of the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 across five linguistic groups

“…The first level of MI, configural invariance , indicates that the construct under study is conceptualized in the same way by individuals from different groups (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). Configural invariance is met when the same factor structure holds across groups, but parameter estimates (i.e.…”

“…This is captured by the second level of MI, strong measurement invariance , indicating that the strength of the relations between the items and the underlying construct is similar across groups, i.e. that individuals in different groups attribute the same meaning to the construct under study (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). It also implies that cross-group comparisons of mean differences on the underlying construct are meaningful.…”

“…It also implies that cross-group comparisons of mean differences on the underlying construct are meaningful. Strong MI holds when factor loadings and thresholds are equal across groups (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). The third and most stringent level of MI, strict measurement invariance , indicates that the underlying construct is measured identically across groups.…”

“…The third and most stringent level of MI, strict measurement invariance , indicates that the underlying construct is measured identically across groups. If this level of MI is not met, cross-group comparisons of mean differences on the underlying construct are still meaningful, although means on the underlying construct are measured with different amount of error between groups (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998; Van de Schoot, Lugtig, & Hox, 2012). Strict MI holds when factor loadings, thresholds, and residual variances are equal across groups (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998).…”

“…If measurement invariance (MI) can be demonstrated, this implies that the items of the mental health questionnaires as well as the mental health concepts they are measuring are interpreted in the same way by individuals with different linguistic backgrounds (Horn & McArdle, 1992; Van De Schoot, Lugtig, & Hox, 2012). Only when MI holds for a mental health questionnaire, cross-group differences in scores on mental health constructs are meaningful (Meredith, 1993; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998; Van De Schoot et al, 2012). Methodologically, scholars have examined MI of mental health questionnaires using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA; Charak et al, 2014; Contractor et al, 2015; Fodor et al, 2015; Schnyder et al, 2015).…”